SOVtRNfv^EMT DO'iiMENT DEPARTMENT

Circular No. 636

'*******^****^**^**''*'^'*-^^^'*''^'*'^^*^'****i*- i-*'i-*'.-*'i-*v'v^w^w\A/\j\j*u'u\Aj*»-n_i'i_fL

Game and Wild-Fur Production

and Utilization

on

Agricultural Land

J. PAUL MILLER, Fish and Wildlife Service

United States Department of the Interior

and

BURWELL B. POWELL, Bureau of Agricultural Economics

United States Department of Agriculture

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, Washington, D. C, Price 10 c«nts

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
WASHINGTON, D. C, JANUARY 1942

^I'^^:13C

From the collection of the

^ m

o Prejinger
V Jjibrary

y t P

San Francisco, California
2008

Circular No. 636

January 1942 • Washington, D. C

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Game and Wild-Fur Production and Utili-
zation on Agricultural Land

By J. PAUL MILLER, Fish and Wildlife Service, United States Department of the In-
terior and BURWELL B. POWELL, Bureau of Agricultural Economics,
United States Department of Agriculture

CONTENTS

Page

Foreword 1

Introduction 2

Past and present status of game and wild fur. . 3

Abundance 3

Habitat 7

Production 9

Harvesting 10

Social and economic importance 10

Value of game and wild fur 11

Origin and shifts in game and wild-fur

values 12

Value of wildlife to the individual user 12

Value of wildlife to the State 14

Value of game and wild fur to the farmer. . 14
Comparative value of game and wild-fur

products and of agricultural products.. _ 16

Game and wild-fur production and use on

agricultural lands 18

Importance of agricultural lands 18

Page
Game and wild-fur production and use — Con.

Problems in production 39

Problems in use 41

Farm-game management programs 45

Purposes 45

Types 45

Prevalence and distribution 51

Success 51

Fur and game farms 52

Fur farms 52

Game farms 53

Encouraging game and wild-fur production

and utilization on agricultural lands 53

Attitudes of interested parties 53

The problem 54

Recommendations 54

General conclusions and recommendations 55

Summary 56

M»^^^^^W^^^^^W^^

FOREWORD

The aggregate of wildlife on agricultural lands of the United
States is large and its estimated value is very impressive. Hence
enthusiasts have suggested that returns from wildlife management
may be an important source of revenue to farmers. Locally, Avorth-
while revenue may be obtained, but the country is vast, and the values,
however large, when spread over the whole, become very thin.
Hunters are so numerous that the game harvest of a State distributed
among them could supply each with only a fraction of a single
specimen of some of the species most sought. If the return to the
hunter is small, then that to the farmer cannot be great. Again
high-class agricultural land can hardly be devoted to such a distinctly
low-income crop as wildlife. Only inferior lands can be used and
their productivity of wildlife as of other crops is low.

These obvious considerations have been ignored and many mislead-
ing statements have been made as to the revenue-yielding potentialities

323408°— 42 1 J

2 CIRCULAR 636, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

of farm wildlife. It is fortunate, therefore, that the results of a
thoroujrh study of the subject are now available. This report on an
investigation, of Nation-wide scope, field work of which was carried
on in 1936 and 1937, has been eagerly awaited. The authors show that
more than 85 percent of the huntable land is in private ownership or
control and that economic necessity for its most efficient use reduces
wildlife production to an incidental, if not accidental, status.

Demand being greater than evei- before, this situation is a matter
of concern for hunters and game officials. They have made attempts
to encourage the increase of wildlife upon farms but have not suc-
ceeded in developing any plan satisfactory enough to gain wide
acceptance.

What the farmers desire more than financial return is freedom from
trespass annoyances, safety for themselves and their possessions, and
control of hunting upon their lands. The realities of farm wildlife
problems are for the first time adequately presented in this publica-
tion, which should go far toward insuring more rational handling of
the wild-animal resources of our agricultural lands.

W. L. McAtee,

Technical Adviser^ V. S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

INTRODUCTION

The principal objectives of the study upon which this circular is
based were to (1) ascertain how much income a farmer or rancher can
expect to realize from wildlife or from game management, (2) get a
comprehensive picture of the measures each State is using to provide
a supply of wildlife, (3) discover or formulate biologically and eco-
nomically sound principles which will serve as a basis for wildlife
conservation programs acceptable to farmers and wildlife conserva-
tionists, and (4) ascertain the feasibility and practicability of a fuller
use of farm and range lands in the production, utilization, and per-
petuation of wildlife coincident with the improvement of agricultural
conditions.

The project agreement and outline were approved in March 1936 and
field work was started in June. The first year was devoted to a recon-
naissance survey of the United States, designed to evaluate the prob-
lems involved in making wildlife a supplementary farm enterprise
and to select representative areas for detailed study. Conferences were
helcl in each State with representatives of the agricultural colleges,
agricultural experiment stations, universities, game departments,
planning boards, and other interested State and Federal agencies,
farmers' organizations, sportsmen's organizations, and individuals
interested in the problems of land use, farm management, and conser-
vation of wildlife. All phases of agi-iculture and of wildlife conser-
vation and utilization were represented in these conferences.

Studies were made during the next year of areas where attempts had
been made, or were being made, to establish farmer-sportsman coopera-
tion in game management on farms. The purpose was to learn some
of the causes of success and of failure of game-management projects,
the effect game management and controlled hunting have upon the
supply of game and hunting opportunities and upon the organization,
management, income, and expense of the farms.

GAAIE AND WILD-FUR PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION S

PAST AND PRESENT STATUS OF GAME AND WILD FUR

Abundance

Wildlife abundance has always been gaged in relative terms, for
no standardized methods have been devised for the enumeration of
most species. Such terms as "rare," "common," and "abundant" are
in general use. So a species designated as abundant by different indi-
viduals or as abundant in different territories may be much more
numerous in a unit area in one district than in another. To establish
a basis on which to indicate the different position occupied by wildlife
in our present economic and social system as compared with periods in
our earlier history, a few well-known recent examples are given.

IN RELATION TO LAND AREA

Many species that once abounded are now extinct or endangered,
and many that once ranged widely are now found only in limited areas.
Sixty million American buffalo once ranged over more than a million
square miles, but a rapid depletion of the herds followed the building
of a transcontinental railroad and the settlement of the land. In 1941
the estimated number was less than 35,000. of which approximately
30.000 were on Canadian ranges and some 5,000 in the local zoos,
national parks, and refuges in the United States.

The heath hen once ranged along the Atlantic seaboard from south-
ern New England to Virginia. Records indicate that these birds were
originally relatively abundant, yet by 1830 they were rare and in
danger of extinction. A few remained on the islands off the coast of
Massachusetts; in 1916 it was estimated that there were between 800
and 2,000 birds on Martha's Vineyard under protection. Catastrophe
struck in many ways and the heath hen became extinct in 1932. These
are only two of many species once numerous and widely distributed
that have suffered reduction in numbers and range, or even extinction,
by the advance of civilization.

Many species of North American mammals have been reduced in
numl)er and only a few have increased. Birds may be nearer former
numbers, although several species have disappeared or are endangered.
Others, especially some exotic species such as the starling, English
sparrow, ring-necked pheasant, and Hungarian partridge, have
increased.

Ecological changes brought about by man have caused an increase in
populations of some native forms, both birds and mammals. The bob-
white increased and greatly intensified its range during the pioneer
days when clearing and plowing th<^ land and the introduction of new
plants provided an abundant sui)ply of food and cover, thus making a
more favorable habitat. Probably there are more bobwhites today
than before the advent of the white man.

Deer have greatly increased in parts of their former ranges. After
the forests were cut, luxuriant new growth created a habitat of much
greater deer-carrying capacity than the virgin woodlands had pro-
vided. Even areas near the populous Atlantic coast are believed to
have more white-tailed deer today than ever before. Ecological
changes brought about by the settlement of the country have resulted
in larger wildlife populations in some areas and smaller in othei^.

4 CIRCULAR 636, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

When all the increases and decreases in the number of individuals of
various species of wildlife are considered, the agg:regate number of
game and wild-fur animals in relation to units of land is believed to be
smaller than in the past.

IN RELATION TO HUMAN DEMANDS

The limitation of the supply of game and wild fur in proportion to
the increased demand is much more evident than is the decrease in the
aggregate number. This demand is determined by the economic and
social development of the people and the density of the human
population.

According to sociologists and economists, people exist in a hunting
and fishing stage of civilization until the game resources fail to meet
their needs. They then usually develop an agricultural society. Rec-
ords of early explorere indicate that when the Iroquois Indians were
discovered by the white men in 1608, there were probably fewer than
20^000 in an area that included the greater part of the present States
of New York, Pennsylvania, and Ohio, and parts of Canada bordering
Lake Ontario. Even these few people apparently needed more wild-
life for sustenance than the supply provided, for they were then in an
agricultural stage of civilization. This culture was well advanced
among the Iroquois Indians, as pointed out by Yoder.^

It is reasonable to assume that before the white men came the Indians
used game and wild fur mainly to provide the necessities of life. Their
demand was relatively constant and in direct proportion to the density
of population. The white men increased the drain on these resources,
for the settlers, when possible, also relied upon this supply for food and
clothing. Among the first evidences of this increased demand was
contravention of former laws and customs. According to Seton,- it
appears "that in 1684. De la Barre, Governor of Canada, complained
that the Iroquois were encroaching on the country of Indians who were
allies of the French. He got a stinging reply from Garangula, the
Onondaga Chief, and a general statement that the aborigines had game
laws ; not written, indeed, but well known, and enforced with a club if
need be: 'We knock the Twightwies (Miamis) and the Chictaghicks
(Illinois) on the head, because they had cut down the trees of peace,
which were the limits of our country. They have hunted Beaver on
our lands. They have acted contrary to the customs of all Indians, for
they left none of the Beavers alive ; they killed both male and female.' "

The human population of the area outlined increased rapidly be-
tween 1680 and 1760. As the game supply of Pennsylvania w^as becom-
ing depleted, the legislators of that colony regulated the take by white
residents in an effort to protect the food supply of the Indians. Such
steps marked the end of the period when wildlife was essential to life.

The demand for game and fur would probably have decreased as the
development of agriculture and industry advanced, if the uses for
game and fur had remained the same, but both whites and natives be-
gan to look for commodities to use in exchange. Furs, hides, antlers,
plumage, and other wildlife products used as luxuries, found a ready

1 YoDER, F. R. INTRODUCTION TO AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS. New York, Thomas Y.
CroweH, 1029, pp. 3—4.

2 Seton. E. T. lives of game animals. New York, Doubleday, Doran, 1929, vol. 4,
Ft. 2, p. 499.

GAME AND WILD-FUR PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION 5

market in Europe. They were a lucrative cash crop. These new uses
made greater demands on wildlife than had the food and clothing
needs of Indians and settlers.

By 1900, when the population of the United States approximated
76 millions, the supply of o;ame available for sustenance was practi-
cally exhausted. Nevertheless, there was still a heavy demand for
both essential and nonessential uses. Efforts were made to protect
these resources by enactment of many laws restricting the season, take,
and use to which game could be put. But the demand for nonsuste-
nance uses grew. Occupations, through the attitudes they create in
people, influence the use to which game and wild fur is put. Wild birds
and mammals were commonplace to the Indians and hunting was a
major occupation, but today it is an esthetic or recreational avocation.
Relaxation and recreation are essential to the physical well-being of
people who live under mental strain in this machine age, and many of
them choose some use of wildlife as a means of relaxation. They spend
considerable time, effort, and money to preserve and perpetuate the
opportunities for such enjoyment.

Demand for game is influenced also by its accessibility which in turn
is affected by the social and economic development of the people. The
Indians followed the trails on foot or w^orked the waterways in canoes;
they had to carry the kill on their backs at least as far as their boats.
Many places were so inaccessible or seldom visited that little demand
was placed on wildlife there. Under improved transportation facili-
ties, the take of game is probably more evenly distributed throughout
the country than in the past. This accessibility makes wildlife avail-
able to more people and assures more complete utilization but it also
reduces the number of undisturbed wildlife breeding areas.

Statistical methods cannot be used in comparing hunting pressure
today and in the past, for there are no comparable records. Licensees
are now permitted to hunt only a relatively few days each year,
whereas hunting was once almost a year-round occupation. There
appears to be no logical way of comparing the past and the present
with respect to kill. No one knows how much game the average Indian
took in a year, nor are there reliable figures on game kill by the aver-
age modern hunter.

The present demand for wildlife for hunting and trapping may be
suggested graphically by statistics on the sale of licenses. However,
these show only the number of applicants for the privilege of taking
game and fur, and do not indicate the take. Moreover, there is wide
variation in license requirements among the States: Some Common-
wealths grant free hunting privileges to veterans, youths, the aged,
and other groups; most States do not require a landowner to have a
license to hunt or trap on his own property; some permit the resi-
dents of a county to hunt anywhere within that county without a
license and some do not require a license to hunt certain species.

Then in some places requirements are rigidly enforced whereas in
others they may be overlooked. Fees vary widely. There is no
record of many persons who hunt and trap. Some States issue only
combination licenses that permit the holder to hunt, fish, and trap,
although the holder may do only one or two; other States require
separate licenses for each purpose. Even with all these limitations the
sale of licenses appears to be the best available statistical measure of
human demand on game and fur.

6

CIRCULAR 63 6, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

■^ p.

_, o

£ a

^ r-t
5

a

GAME AND WILD-FUR PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION 7

Under present conditions, the sale of huntino; and trapping privi-
leges tends to vary inversely to the density of human populations
(fig. 1). The number of licenses shown to each thousand inhabitants
decreases as the density of human population increases. This seem-
ingly paradoxical situation might be explained if the density of
population beyond a point inhibits and restricts the sporting use of
wildlife; or if the supply of game becomes so limited and the sport
f)f hunting becomes so inferior that the sporting demand eventually
drops. Perhaps the number of other available pastimes that multiply
with the increased population density influences the proportionate
demand. Or if the density of population corresponds closely with
the occupations of the people, this may reflect the type of recreational
pastimes in which they engage.

Another way of estimating the hunting pressure in comparison
with human populations is indicated in figure 2. This chart indi-
cates that hunting pressure tends to be proportionate to the density
of population. States having comparable population densities some-
times differ in hunting pressure and they usually differ widely in the
occupations of the people.

Degree of demand for wildlife is often influenced by social dictates.
A species may be used in one part of the country but ignored in
another, for varied reasons. Some game animals are looked upon as
having superior sporting qualities, whereas others are considered to
lack essential elements. Requirements of raw furs are determined
to a great extent by fashion.

After an evaluation of all available factors relative to demands for
game and wild fur it is reasonable to conclude that there is a greater
demand for game and wild fur today than in the past, and that
whether judged on the basis of unit areas or of human demand, game
and wild fur appear to be less abundant than formerly.

Habitat

The type of landownership, public or private, determines to a con-
siderable degree both the use and the intensity of the use to which
land is put. This influences the type and condition of existing wild-
life habitat.

. Under the form of government prevalent among the Indians, all
the land was tribal property and little use was made of it except for
wildlife. Whenever habitat conditions permitted, game was pro-
duced to the maximum carrying capacity of the land, the only limi-
tations being those intrinsic in nature — and the Indians. Since the
principal use of the land was the production of wild animals, and
the pursuit of game interfered with no individual right nor with
any other desired use of the land, it is assumed that all members of
a tribe had free access to the game on tribal lands.

White men brought the system of private ownership and intensive
use of the land, which progressed with settlement. Lands passed
from public to private ownership by grant, homestead, sale, and
other means, until today the Federal, State, and municipal Govern-
ments ow^n or control not more than 30 percent of the total land area
of the United States. Much of this is devoted to uses that inhibit
or prevent the production of wildlife, and, on much of it, hunting
cannot be permitted.

a

CIRCULAR 636, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

GAME AND WILD-FUR PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION 9

Cities, parks, railroad and highway rights-of-way, reservoirs,
and other special-use areas are restricted in the part they can play
in wildlife production. In addition, large tracts of Federal and
State lands are leased to private individuals for uses that often
conflict with wildlife production or use. Many species of game
and wild-fur animals must rely to a large extent upon agriculture
to provide suitable habitat. Public lands even though used for
agriculture are less likely to provide a cultivated habitat. The
uses made of this wildlife depend largely upon the wishes of pri-
vate landowners. The changes to private ownership of land, and
consequently of wildlife habitat, have been so pronounced that today
72 percent of the potentially huntable land of the United States is
privately owned and an additional 15 percent in public ownership
is leased for private use. On these lands, habitat conditions are
determined primarily by land use, the major objective of which
is entirely independent of wildlife production. In fact, much of
the privately owned land is so intensively used that game habitat
is often destroyed. On this land, wild birds and mammals can seldom
be the first consideration; their occurrence is generally incidental,
if not accidental, to other land use.

It is logical to assume, therefore, that present habitat conditions
for wildlife are in general inferior to former conditions, although
certain exceptions to this generalization are well known.

Production

Since game and fur animals were essential to the existence of
the Indians, their production was not allowed to become entirely
a matter of change. The laws of certain tribes were designed to
protect and perpetuate certain species. The agricultural Indians
took only what they needed and limited the take to the adults and
frequently to the male of a species. This was a form of wildlife
management. The manipulation of cover, such as the burning of
forest and prairie to influence ecological succession, was practiced
by such means as the Indians had at their disposal.

Many present laws and regulations are designed to control the
take of wildlife for the purpose of assuring the maintenance of
breeding stock and the perpetuation of species. Many game farms
and fur farms are operated by governmental departments and indi-
viduals throughout the country to supply public needs. Fur farms
do not directly affect the production of fur in the wild but they
influence demand. Animals produced on fur farms are bred and
reared in confinement. The animals have been carefully selected
and bred until they are of superior quality and are generally too
valuable to be used for hunting or trapping. There are some excep-
tions, for raccoons, red foxes, and others are occasionally liberated
for restocking and other purposes, but this has only a small influ-
ence on the wild supply.

The game farms devoted to game birds have not yet produced
birds at a cost low enough to warrant their use for public shooting.
The present cost of these birds, raised to maturity, is estimated to
be between $1.50 and $2 each. As hunting licenses sell for $1 to
$3 and permit the holder to kill six or more birds annually, it is

323408° — 12 2

10 CIRCULAR 636, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

evident that the State cannot depend upon pen-reared stock to meet
the demand for shooting. But pen-reared birds are now quite gen-
erally used to restock depleted covers in the hope that their progeny
will increase the supply of shootable game. The supply of upland
game therefore depends largely upon natural production. Various
procedures to increase production have been recommended in recent
years, most of them as a part of game management. As these
management plans progress and are correlated with other land-use
practices, the farm production of game birds and animals may gradu-
ally assume an incidental status where associated with agriculture.

it seems safe to say that, at present, wildlife production on agri-
cultural land is virtually accidental. Despite large expenditures,
and the enactment and enforcement of laws in the interest of wild-
life throughout the United States, the existence of game and wild
fur is still dependent largely upon fortuitous circumstances.

Harvesting

Methods used by the Indians in harvesting wildlife were primitive
as compared with modern procedures. Snares, pits, logfalls, and the
use of bows and arrows required real physical effort and skill. Hunt-
ing and trapping were the principal occupations of most of the men
and boys in many tribes.

Modern mechanics of harvesting game and fur animals now require
far less physical effort and skill. New weapons and traps, rapid trans-
portation, well-bred and highly trained dogs, and new hunting and
trapping techniques have made things easier.

Formerly the harvesting of game was a means of livelihood; today
it is a sport. These changes would be disastrous to game if they were
not partly compensated for by improved hunting ethics and legislative
action. Even then with the larger number of persons participating, it
is probable that the aggregate annual kill now exceeds that of former
times.

Public sentiment at present is generally opposed to the sale of wild
game through commercial channels. Most States prohibit such dis-
position of game birds or mammals, even though they are obtained
legally during the open season. The laws are designed to prevent
market hunting and to make the taking of game a form of recrea-
tion. The harvesting of the wild-fur crop, however, is still a valued
source of income for a considerable number of people.

Social and Economic Importance

The social and economic importance of wildlife among any people
depends upon the degree of social advancement that that group has
attained. Sociologists consider that the five progressive stages of
civilization are brought about by necessity and not by inclination.
There are gradations between the classifications, and the boundaries
are not sharply drawn. The first and most primitive condition is the
collective stage ; man in this phase of social advancement is little above
the status of animal, for he subsists on what he can seize with his bare
hands.

The next step is to the hunting and fishing stage, so commonly exem-
plified among primitive peoples; it is characterized by the possession

GAME AND WILD-FUR PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION 11

of tools, usually weapons that enable their owners to take possession
of wild animals which otherwise would be unobtainable. Human
beings in this stage often })and together to hunt wild mammals and
birds; thus wildlife assumes social significance. Game now becomes
of major economic importance, for such people depend almost exclu-
sively upon wildlife for food, clothing, shelter, and essential parts of
tools and weapons.

In the pastoral stage man has all the skills of the hunting and fishing
stage out of which it developed and, in addition, the skills of taming or
domesticating animals. To find food for their stock the people of a
pastoral society are necessarily nomadic. They begin to appreciate
somewhat the esthetic and recreational benefits from wildlife. As
these nomads own herds of domestic animals from which they obtain
food, clothing, shelter, and profit, they are not so dependent on wildlife
as the less socialized groups.

The agricultural phase of civilization is characterized by the domesti-
cation of plants and, provided tillage is advanced beyond merely the
use of a hoe, presupposes the domestication of animals. People in a
fully developed agricultural stage use wildlife primarily for esthetic
and recreational purposes. But wildlife still has some economic value
in providing food and clothing in substitution for marketable domestic
commodities.

The agricultural-industrial is that stage of social development
wherein a considerable proportion of the population is no longer
directly dependent upon the soil for livelihood. Many urban residents
are entirely alienated from the soil and rural associations. As wildlife
offers an avenue of return to natural things, much time, effort, and
money are expended in the perpetuation, care, and pursuit of it. Wild
birds and mammals reach their peak of social importance in this stage.
Marketable wildlife commodities are of little economic importance,
however, compared with other products of soil or of industry, and the
people are no longer dependent to any appreciable degree upon wild-
life for subsistence. Therefore, it is evident that the recreational,
esthetic, social, and cultural importance of wildlife to a people varies
directly with, and the economic importance of wildlife varies inversely
to, the development of the arts and sciences of a people.

VALUE OF GAME AND WILD FUR

The economic importance of game and wild fur is far less than it
used to be, but their social importance is far greater. Their value
depends upon and is determined by their capacity to gratify one or
more human wants or desires and the cost of maintaining a supply.
These commodities have several sources of value. For example,
game has value as food and wild fur has value as raiment and adorn-
ment. These are designated as tangible values. Game and wild fur
along with many other forms of wildlife also have value as objects of
esthetic and recreational enjoyment. These are designated as in-
tangible values. A third and very important value of wildlife is the
stimuli and foundation it provides for industries and commerce. This
is an indirect value.

In measuring direct as well as indirect values of game and wild
fur and in discussing them, tangible values can be, and usually are

12 CIRCULAR 63 6, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

measured and expressed in monetary terms, but intangible values are
too elusive to be measured easily or expressed in monetary terms.
Indirect values usually include both tangible and intangible values,
so are difficult of measurement. The value of the conunodities and
the volume of business of the industries and commerce stimulated
by the commodities must also be differentiated.

Origin and Shifts in Game and Wild-Fur Values

Tangible value is apparently about the only value game and fur
had to the Indians and the pioneer settlers. It was usually plentifid,
nature provided the supply without cost, and getting it cost only
the use of crude, often home-made, weapons and the energy to stalk
and capture the bird or mammal. This was work to these people, but
each person could take possession of all the game or fur he wanted.
As it was plentiful and he used it only for food, clothing, or shelter,
no monetary value was assigned to it.

As the country was settled the use and value of game and wild fur
shifted. First they were objects of sustenance of great value to the
individual possessing them but of no monetary value in commerce.
Next they became objects of commerce having great value. Lastly
game has* become an object of no commercial value but of increasingly
great esthetic and recreational value with apparently limitless direct
and indirect values. Wild fur remains an object of limited commercial
value. The second phase in this shift together with the accompany-
ing change in land use inevitably resulted in the present position of
wildlife in our economic and social system.

Wildlife values as well as the uses have changed vastly since the
early years. Wildlife is relatively scarce. Maintenance of a supply
cost's enormous sums. And the equipment and travel necessary to
hunt and fish are expensive to the individual. To get wild fur is
still work but the supply is small and the take is limited to a very
few species. Another modern but nonconsumptive use of wildlife is
the casual pursuit of wildlife by those who enjoy photographing it
and those who get esthetic and recreational enjoyment out of merely
seeing and hearing wild creatures. This use seems to have great
possibilities and is rapidly increasing.

Value of Wildlife to the Individual User

Modern hunters place a high value on wildlife mainly because of
the intangible value they receive from the sport and recreation it
offers ; they assign only a relatively small tangible value to game prod-
ucts for food or clothing. Data from hunter rej^orts show an average
meat value of $2 per hunter reporting in upland-game States and $14
per hunter reporting in States having both big game and upland game,
with waterfowl included in both cases. The value of the meat taken by
big-game hunters ranges from nothing to $75 per hunter reporting.

The intangible cost of wildlife to the modern hunter is the energy
expended in pursuing game; the tangible costs are the license fees,
taxes, and contributions to conservation organizations which help to
maintain the game supply and the money spent for travel, supplies,
equipment, services, and related items.

GAME AND WILD-FUR PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION

13

The modern trapper, like the trapper of bygone days, vahies fur
animals becanse he can sell their pelts for cash; getting them is work.
The trapper's intangible cost is the work of capturing the animal and
preparing the pelts for sale ; his tangible costs are much the same as
the hunter's. Data from trapper reports show that in Prairie States
the average value of fur taken per trapper reporting is less than $1,
but it ranges from $25 in States with fair fur-animal habitat to $120
in the best muskrat-producing States.

As the reporting hunters and trappers are knowni to have a higher
average kill than the nonreporters in the same State, the values given
here per hunter and per trapper are higher than the average for all
hunters and trappers, so the indications are that the average value of
meat and fur taken is very small.

FiGiKE 3. — Cottontail rabbits, a typical farm-land spwies, are the most important
and popular game animal in the United States ; however, they can be very
destructive in orchards.

Users of wildlife who neither hunt nor trap place a high intangible
value upon it because they enjoy photographing wild creatures, lis-
tening to their calls, and watching their behavior (fig. 3). The costs
to these users are about the same as the cost to the hunters except for
the lack of the license fees.

Thus the indirect value of game and wild fur to the individual
apparently resides in the added business brought to the community and
the contribution toward enlivening and enriching the environment.
Hunters and tourists attracted to an area by wildlife create a demand
for local products and services. The direct value of wildlife to the
individual is found in the meat and fur taken, and in his own enjoy-
ment of hunting.

14 circular g3 6, u. s. department of agriculture

Value of Wildlife to the State

Indirect values of wildlife to the State or other civil divisions are
those resulting from the esthetic, recreational, and social facilities
provided for the people and the business brought to local industries
that pay taxes and employ people. Wildlife also attracts certain
industries and businesses, and occasionally serves to increase the resi-
dent population of an area. By increasing the taxable property and
business, wildlife often contributes an indirect but tangible income
to the community, municipality, county, or larger governmental unit.
The direct value of wild birds and mammals to the State is largely
found in the receipts from the sale of hunting, trapping, and fishing
licenses, and allied items. In areas where the wildlife industry and
allied businesses are concentrated, the indirect receipts can, and some-
times do, form a substantial share of the tax revenue.

Wildlife also provides an indirect, intangible income to the State
by attracting visitors and by enticing many of its own residents to
spend their leisure in healthful outdoor recreation.

In all probability the value of indirect receipts from wildlife
greatly exceed the value of direct receipts, and intangible values
exceed both the direct and indirect. It would appear that the value
of wildlife to the State today lies in the important and powerful
stimuli for a large and active group of industries and in the incen-
tives and means for esthetic, recreational, and social outdoor activities
for the people. Wildlife value to the individual depends upon the use
he makes of it. but, in all instances, it is primarily intangible in the
form of esthetic and recreational enjoyment.

Value of Game and Wild Fur to the Farmer

destruction of insects

Perplexing problems are involved in discussing the values of ^ame
and wild fur to the farmers. For example, it is frequently pointed
out that wild birds destroy many injurious insects. This is un-
doubtedly true, but the species most generally mentioned are not
game-bird species, although quail and pheasants do at times consume
large quantities of insects.

Not all insects are injurious. Probably more species are either
beneficial or neutral than are harmful. All species are eaten by some
birds and mammals. Just how much net money value can be placed
on the destruction of insect pests is open to question. Certain lia-
bilities must be charged against the other activities of these game
birds. If they destroy more crops than they save, or if they eat as
many beneficial as injurious insects, there may be no net benefit to
the farmers. Results vary according to local circumstances. Ap-
parently there are few records of game birds assisting materially in
the control of insect outbreaks, and there is no evidence that game
birds have made possible any substantial reduction in the use of con-
trol measures. It is entirely possible that certain forms of insects
themselves occupy a comparable or more important place in the con-
trol of undesirable insects than do game birds. Probtibh' no game
mammal and only a limited number of fur-bearing animals are recog-
nized as being insectivorous in their habits.

GAME AND WILD-FUR PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION 15

DESTRUCTION OF WEEDS

Tlie subject of the destruction of weed seeds by game birds is contro-
versial. One group maintains that this activity of the birds brings
great benefits; another group says the birds are responsible for the
wide dissemination of obnoxious plants and the destruction of culti-
vated crops. Both sides have some evidence to support their conten-
tions. Weeds always produce a greater supply of seeds than can
possibly find room to grow, so farmers realize that game birds have
little if any effect on the need of cultivation to control weed pests.
But where game birds and mammals do perform a service to agriculture
this value should not be overlooked.

PROVIDING ESTHETIC ENJOYMENT

Farmers continually say of game, '"Oh, I like to see it around."
Farmers enjoy working among living things. The daily association
with birds and manmials and the enlivenment and enrichment of i-ural
environment by these creatures are among the attractive features of
farm life. The bevy of quail in the garden, the scurrying rabbit in
the fence corner, the squirrel frisking in the wood lot, and the colorful
pheasant in the hay meadow are usually appreciated by the farmer and
his family. In fact, because of this appreciation the family frequently
objects to hunting on their property or elsewhere.

BUSINESS AND SOCIAL USES

Game frequently furnishes a farmer a chance for business or social
contacts. Probably far more could be done in this direction, although
the farmer may not choose to accept money either for the wild crea-
tures or for hunting privileges. Nevertheless, many farmers enjoy
hunting and offer this entertainment to friends and business associates.
In this way some farmers can, and often do, make the wildlife on their
land a business and social asset of no mean proportion. This is but one
of the reasons for a careful rationalization of wildlife and other farm
enterprises.

HOME USES /

Game was frequently an important item of living to the early settlers
throughout the country, but now, except in certain areas where sub-
marginal land is still farmed, game is usually an "extra" on the table.
It does supply variety for farm families when available.

In the aggregate game consumed by the rural population is un-
doubtedly of considerable consequences and releases for market domes-
tic items that would otherwise be used by the rural families. Farmers
are not required to buy licenses when hunting on their own properties
and seldom report to the game department the head of game taken
during the legal open season, so the amount of game they use on their
tables cannot be known.

WILD FUR

Money for wild fur may be realized by the farmer by his either
trai)ping the animals or selling trapping privileges. The method most
advantageous to the farmer depends largely upon local circumstances.
Estimates as to what proportion of the total annual crop is harvested

16 CIRCULAR 63 6, V. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

by farmers vary greatly. Recent investigations indicate that perhaps
the hirgest proportion of wild fur is trapped by professional trappers
from the cities. In some instances farmers or farm l^oys get money
from furs trapped in their local communities. They seldom confine
their activities to their own property, but the money they get, on an
average, seldom exceeds $100 annually. For families on submarginal
land this cash item may be of critical importance. More successful
farmers do not have time to trap over wide districts, and such trapping
is necessary to earn any considerable income from wild-fur animals
frequenting agricultural land; however, the per-acre revenue from
some muskrat marshes is said to equal that of nearby agricultural land.

The sale of w^ild fur probably returns several million dollars annu-
ally to the rural population of this country. Intensive studies now
being conducted under the Pittman-Robertson Act in some of the best
fur-producing States indicate that considerably less than half the
receipts from raw furs go to farmers and farm boys, so previous esti-
mates were apparently too high.

In 1929, when prices were much higher than in recent years and the
take of wild fur was greater, the annual market value of this product
in the United States w^as estimated at 65 million dollars. Some
authorities maintain that this estimate is high even for that period.
There has been a great decline in the take of wild furs and in the price
obtained, and studies indicate that the annual gross receipts from wild
fur may not have exceeded 20 to 25 million dollars in recent years.

The sale of trapping privileges on marshlands may be of consider-
able consequence, but the money received for the privilege of trapping
terrestrial forms of wild fur on better types of farm land is seldom
an appreciable item. Usually the privilege is freely given, for the
farmer is glad to get rid of foxes, minks, skunks, and some other fur
animals.

It has been repeatedly pointed out, however, that the several million
dollars received by rural people for raw furs is received by farm fam-
ilies who are badly in need of cash to supplement their income from
farming. Therefore, farmer receipts from wild fur are of much more
relative importance than the market value would indicate.

Comparative Value of Game and Wild-Fur Products and
OF Agricultural Products

DIFFICULTIES ENCOUNTERED

An estimated money value of the annual game and wild-fur crop is
often compared with the sales value of some agricultural crop. The
only apparent reason for this is that both are products of the soil and
so are competitors, more or less, for the use of the land and for the
farmers' time and resources. Because such comparisons almost totally
lack a basis and yet are frequently carried to erroneous conclusions,
any discussions of the subject are fraught with possibilities of mis-
takes, misunderstandings, and misinterpretations. However, in a
report of this nature the subject cannot be ignored.

There is almost no statistical information pertaining to game and
w^ild-fur production and utilization. A few State game departments
require hunters and trappers to report the amount of game and fur

GAME AND WILD-FUR PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION 17

taken diirino; the year, but the percentage of returns in these States is
disappointingly low. A greater number of the State game depart-
ments require reports from buyers of raw fur; so the information on
furs is more complete although still inadequate. No technique has
been devised that will provide an adequate inventory of the living
game and fur animals of a State, and most States could not aiford to
tabulate and analyze the figures regarding the kill. The only avail-
able figures regarding the inventorv or the take of game and wild
fur for the country as a whole are rather crude estimates.

For agricultural crops and livestock, on the other hand, there are
reliable estimates of production, marketing, and home and farm use.
The need for providing facilities in State and Federal Government for
collecting, analyzing, and supplying reliable and comparable wildlife
statistics is apparent.

Then there is a decided difference between the status of ownership of
wildlife and of farm crops. The ownership of game by the State in its
sovereign capacity, in trust for the benefit of the people, rests upon
common law and not upon statutes. The courts of the 48 States have
established the ownership of all wildlife in the people as a whole —
that is, in the State — which can dispose of it only according to spe-
cific laws. These laws limit the disposition of wildlife to only a few
species of birds and mammals and then only by selling or granting
individuals the right to take a specified number of the specified species
for specific uses. The ownership of crops, however, has always rested
with the individual who produces them, and their disposition usually
rests solely upon the decision of the individual. It is his prerogative to
dispose of them in the quantity and in the way he chooses, without too
much regard for his neighbor. This is still fundamentally so, although
conservative decisions of recent years indicate a vast public interest in
soil conservation and orderly distribution of agricultural products.

Who produces game and wild fur? Is it the State or the private
landowner? The answer should be. — Both in cooperation. But in the
past this fact has not been adequately acknowledged. There is no
question as to who produces the farm crops.

With these difficulties to overcome, is it any wonder that current
discussions and reports as to the value of wildlife are confusing to
say the least, and sometimes give money values that are considered
excessiA'e ? This is particularl}^ true when comparing the value of the
game and wild-fur crop with that of certain farm crops. In these
discussions and reports the value of wildlife is frequently calculated
as the estimated money turn-over occasioned directly and indirectly by
wildlife, plus the estimated value of the meat and fur taken by the
hunter and trapper, plus the theoretical value of the outdoor recrea-
tion; whereas the farm-crop value is the statistically estimated market
value of those parts of the farm crop that are sold or used on the
farm.

Wildlife is of inestimable value to the Nation for it provides es-
thetic, .social, and recreational outlets for the people and it is the
foundation of some industries and stimulates activities in many
others. But it is evident that the money value frequently attributed
to the annual wildlife crops is probably exaggerated,

32.S408°— 42 3

18 CIRCULAR 63 6, IT. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

SUGGESTIONS FOR AN ACCEPTABLE COMPARISON

As Avild birds and mammals are more or less competitors of farm
crops which the landowner produces because of theii' money value,
it is desirable to develop some acceptable means of compai-ing values.
For this reason the following suggestions and comparisons are made.

A more acceptable way to compare the value of the game and wild-
fur crop with that of farm crops than the one now used would be to
compare the value of the wild meat and fur taken by hunters and
trappers with the gross value of an agricultural crop or livestock
product. Even in this comparison care must be exercised not to take
fictitious values for the meat and fur. This would require reliable
statistics relative to game and fur and some method of estimating a
fair price for wild meat.

There are no acceptable statistical estimates of the value of the wild
meat and fur harvested each year by hunters and trappers. Avail-
able data indicate that any one of 15 or more farm crops, livestock,
and livestock products have a greater value than the aggregate direct
value of all wild meat and fur taken in a year.

More industries are dependent upon farm crops than are dependent
upon wildlife, and many individual farm crops involve more Inisiness
activity and employ more people than does wildlife. But it must be
recognized that several industries are largely dependent upon wildlife
and that wildlife causes considerable business activity, furnishes em-
j^loyment for many people, and has esthetic and recreational value
that cannot be measured in money. But so do farm crops. All of
this leads to the conclusion that wildlife is one of our land use crops
that has a value sufficiently great to be seriously considered by farm-
ers and land use planners.

GAME AND WILD-FUR PRODUCTION AND USE ON
AGRICULTURAL LANDS

Importance of Agricultural Lands

classification of game and fur species according to
habitat requirements

A classification of game with respect to its optimum or preferred
habitat may assist in evaluating agricultural lands in relation to the
production and utilization of game and wild fur. The American
game policy.^ adopted by the American Game Association in 1930,
divided game into four classes, as follows:

(1) "Fann game, which inhabits class B land. It thrives best on
farms with suitable cover."

Class B land is land that is too high in value foi- the public to buy,
own, or manage in quantities exclusively for wildlife. The bob\\'hite
quail, cottontail rabbit, ring-necked pheasant. Hungarian partridge,
and fox squirrel are considered farm game species.

(2) "Forest and range game, which inhabits class A lands. It
thrives best on land partially farmed."

•^ AMERK'AX Gamk As. SOI- 1 ATI on. Tiansiictioiis of llio 17th .\mericiin Oame Conference
(1930), 17 : 286.

GAME AND WILD-FUR PRODUCTIOX AXD UTILIZATION 19

Class A land is low enouofli in value for the public to own or man-
age. Forest and range game includes the white-tailed deer, mule deer,
black-tailed deer, wild turkey, pinnated grouse, sharp-tailed grouse,
ruii'ed grouse, sage hen, western quails, black bear, antelope, and gray
squirrel.

(3) '"Wilderness game, which inhabits very cheap class A land. It
is excluded b}- farming, or other economic uses."'

According to the classification given by the American Game Asso-
ciation, wilderness game includes such species as elk. bison, grizzly
bear, moose, mountain sheep, and mountain goat.

(4) ''Migratory game, which inhabits both classes of land. It
thrives on farm land if marsh lands are left undrained."'

Migiatory game includes such species as shore birds, the woodcock,
river ducks, sea ducks, geese, and doves.

It seems probable that a similar classification for fur animals would
be of use in this discussion, and for convenience in comparison fur
animals may be classified as :

(1) Farm fur animals, which inhabit class B land. They thrive
best on farm land.

The list would include the opossum, red fox. skunk, civet cat. and
weasel.

(2) Forest and range fur animals, which inhabit class A land. They
thrive best on lands partially devoted to agriculture.

Forest and range fui- animals would include the black bear, bobcat,
cougar, coyote, wolf, and gray fox.

(3) Land and water fur animals, which inhabit both classes of land.
They thrive wherever lakes, marshes, and sloughs are left undrained
and wherever streams flow continuously, if food and cover are available.

This group would include such animals as the beaver, muskrat,
mink, otter, and raccoon.

(4) Wilderness fur animals, which inhabit very cheap class A land.
They are usually extirpated or greath' reduced b}^ agriculture or other
economic uses of the land.

Such species as the grizzly bear. lynx, fisher, marten, and wolverine
would be included.

(5) Marine fur animals, which inliabit coastal waters only.

This list would be limited largely to the seal, sea lion, walrus, and
sea otter. These animals are under national or international control,
so do not enter into this discussion.

HABITAT PROVIDED ON AGRICULTURAL LANDS

One method of api)raising the importance of agricultuial lands
in the production of game and wild fur is to estimate how nnich wild-
life habitat agricultural lands provide.

Animal-specialty, cash-grain, croj^-specialty, dairying, fruit, general,
livestock, poidtry. and truck farming involve great variations in the
intensity of land use and in food and cover provided for wildlife. Con-
sequently, although quantity and (juality vary, uiany tyi)es of wildlife
habitat are found on farm lauds. (See figs. 4—10.)

20

CIRCULAR 63 6, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Figure 4. — Nonarable areas on the farm are an asset if permitted to produce
wildlife food and cover. The soil is protected and pheasants, quail, rabbits, and
wild-fur animals thrive in such areas.

Figure 5. — Except on level land, nltraclean farming is poor hind use. It leads to
water and wind erosion of the soil and provides no habitat for game and wild-fur
animals or song and insectivorous birds.

GAME AND WILD-FUR PRODUCTIOX AND UTILISATION 21

Figure 6. — Here is farming that may be good for wildlife, but does not provide a
decent income for the occupants, even though the land is fertile. The returns
from such farming do not pay farm production costs, and the returns from
game and wild fur, which are probably greater than those from crops, fail to
pay taxes on good land.

22

CIRCULAR 0 3 6, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF ACRICULTURE

GAME AND WILD-FUR PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION

23

Figure 8. — Excellent fanii-niaiiagement and wildlife practices. The border of
lespedeza provides erosion control, a turnrow, and wildlife food and cover.
The inner border of shnil)s prevents encroachment of the woodland into the
cultivated field, protects the woodland from winds, and, at the same time,
provides good wildlife baliitat.

Figure 9. — White-tailed u.-.i. iiu- most wide.spread and popular big-game animal
in the United States is practical only on range and wooded areas insofar as
agriculture is concerned. Deer frequenrly beconie a serious problem when
their range includes cropland.

24 CIRCULAR 636, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Figure 10. — A Southwestern landscape showing wise and unwise grazing prac-
tices. .4, produces inferior livestock, destroys the soil, and eliminates wildlife;
B. produces good livestock, protects the soil, and provides wildlife habitat.

GAME AND WILD-FUR PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION

25

Table 1. — Habitat classification of American f/anic species'^

Estimated composition or optimum range

Land
value per

Species

Culti-
vated
land

Grass-
land

Brush-
land

Wood-
land

Marsh-
land

Water

acre of
present or
prospective

range '

1. Farm game:

Bohwhite__ ...

Percent
40
40
40
70
30

15

Percent
20

Percent
40

Percent

Percent

Percent

Dollars
10-100

Cottontail

20 40
10 25
30 .

15 35
20 60

10-100

Ring-necked pheasant

Hungarian partridge .

70

35
20
40

25

25-100
.tO-100

Fox sQUirrel

10-100

2. Forest and range game:

2-10

Mule deer and black-tailed deer

0-36

Wild turkev

15
25

30
40

45
45
60
60

2-25

Pinnated grouse_ ._

2-10

Sharp-tailed grouse

2-10

40

2-10

Sage hen

100
25

n-4

Western quail

25

50
40
25

0-100

Black bear

60

2-10

-Antelope

75

0-4

Grav squirrel. ._ _

100
40

4-50

3. Wilderness game:

Elk

20
100

40

2-A

Bison

0^

Grizzly bear

60
40
35

40
40

0^

Moose

20

2-4

Mountain sheep

65
100

50

0-2

Mountain goat

50
40
40
40
20

40
60
40

0-2

4. Migratory game:

Shore birds, except woodcock. .

Woodcock

40

20

River ducks .-

20

.\11 values

Geese . . . . . . ...

20

75

20

25

' Data adapted from Transactions of the Seventeenth .\merican Game Conference, ]>. 309, 1930.
2 Land value based on agricultural value.

Table 2. — Habitat classification

of American

fiir-aninial s

pedes

Estimated composition of optimum range

Land
value

Species

Culti-
vated
land

Grass-
land

Brush-
land

Wood-
land

Marsh-
land

Water

per acre
of present

or pro-
spective

range '

1. Farm fur animals:

Opossum - -

Red fox

Percent
20
20
30
20
20

Percent

10
10
10

Percent
35
40
40
50
40

40
50
40
35
30

Percent
45
40
20
20
.30

60
50
40

50

Percent

Percent

Dollars
10-100
5-100

Skunk . -

0-100

Civet cat

0-100

0-100

2. Forest and range fur animals:

2-10

Bobcat

0-25

Cougar

20
50
20

0-10

Covote -.

15

2-50

Wolf

0-25

0-50

3, Land and water fur animals:

Beaver .

20

60

40
100
100
100

80

20
80
40
30
20

60
20
60
70

0-10

0-iO

Mink

0-10

Otter

0-10

Raccoon

20
60

4-25

4. Wilderness fur animals:

Grizzlv bear ..

0-4

0-4

Fisher

0-4

0-4

Wolverine

20

0-4

5. Marine fur animals (not considered)

' Land value based on agricultural value.
323408°— 42 4

26 CIRCULAR 6 36, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Most of the land used for agriculture, which includes livestock pro-
duction on range land as well as crop and livestock production on
farms, is in private ownership. The rest is found in public grazing
lands, national forests, or other publicly owned lands on which private
interests have leased agricultural use rights. Even on these publicly
owned lands, agricultural uses have priority rights to the extent of the
lease, which may approach the carrying capacity of the range.

The Land Planning Committee of the National Resources Board,
in discussing grazing policies/ says, "The policy, announced by the
Secretary of Agriculture in 1905, at the time this department took
charge of the national forests, namely, that the water, food, and forest
should be used for the benefit of the home builder first of all, has been
a guiding policy in forest administration." As grazing is the princi-
pal economic use to which much land in the West is put, agriculture
assumes prfority rights in many of the nationtd forests.

Other public agencies have followed nnich the same policy in the
administration of their lands. At present, however, approximately
one-half of the range land in the United States is privately owned, and
by paying grazing fees, stockmen procure interest in the public grazing
lands that is recognized by the administering agencies to the extent
that stockmen have preferential rights in the use of the range. In
many instances, according to the estimates of experts, the number of
livestock under permit is equal to the carrying capacity. Therefore,
under present conditions this range land is primarily devoted to agri-
cultural uses, with these uses of the land determining to a large extent
its suitability and availability for other purposes.

The 1935 census of agriculture discloses that there were 1,054.515,111
acres of land in farms, which constituted 55.4 percent of the United
States. The Land Planning Connnittee's report of the National Re-
sources Board, in discussing the relation of ])asture acreage to other
uses of land, show^s that there were 577,900,000 acres of agricultural
land not in farms — that is, grazed range land, which constituted an-
other 30.4 percent of the United States.' Thus in 1934, 85.8 percent of
the United States was agricultural land. It is clearly evident that,
on the basis of area, agricultural land provides a A^ery large percentage
of the wildlife habitat in this country.

Because every acre of agricultural land does not provide food and
cover for game and wild-fur animals, it seems advisable to refine this
estimate somewhat. Table 3 shows the classes and subclasses of land
and the majoi- land use areas, the acreages devoted to each, and the
estimated percentages and acreage of each that is now providing cover
or food, or both, for game and fur animals. In estimating the acreages
of cover and food, no attempt was made to evaluate or indicate the
quality or the carrying capacity of the land. But for land to be con-
sidered as providing food or cover, it must possess the essentials for
wildlife during the critical time of the year, usually late in winter or
early in spring, in sufficient quantities and of such qualities as to be
usable by the game oi- fui- animals conunon to that area. The acreages
given in table 3 as pi-oviding cover and food for game and fur animals

*UxiTEi> States Xai'ional Resources Board. AORirtiLTURAL i.an'h requirements and
REsoii!(ES Pnrt ^ of the Supplenientarv Report of the Land IManiiiii}; rommittee. 64 pp.
Washington, D. C. 1035.

" See footnote 4. p. 30.

GAME .\ND WILD-FUR PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION

27

were estimated by experienced biologists and economists who are fa-
miliar with agriculture and other land use conditions, and with wild-
life and its administration, production, and utilization throughour ihe
Nation.

A study of the percentages in table 3 indicates that the agi'icultural
use of the land is relativeh' favorable to the production of cover and
food for game and fur animals as compared with most nonagricultural
uses. According to these estimates, it is believed that 48 ])ercent of the
land in farms and 81 percent of the agricultural land not in faims are
providing food and covei- for game and fur animals, and 59 percent
of the agricultural land provides 81.6 percent of the wildlife habitat
of the country.

According to this table, when all agricultural land is compared with
all nonagricultural land. 59 percent of the formei- and 68 i)ercent of the
latter are providing food and covei- for game and wild-fur animals.
Some species depend for their existence upon agricultural land, or
rather upon the conditions which agricultural pursuits create, and
where these species are important game species, agriculture and the
land devoted to it will be of even greater importance to wildlife pro-
duction than is here indicated.

Table 3.

-E.sti>nnted acreage inuridiiiy food and cover for wildlife, by classes
of land. 1935

Class of land

Agricultural;

Land in farm';:

Cropland

Open pasture..

Woodland

All other land.

Total

Land not in farms:

Forest and woodland grazed. .

Do

Nonforest and woodland
grazed.

Do

Total

All agricultural land .

Ownership

Private,
do..

.do.
.do.

Providing food and cover

Total
area

1. 054. 515

Public I » 132.612

Private .
Public -

Private.

< 143. 100
* 163. 353

106. 089
128.790
122.515

9.2
11.2
10.7

5.6
6.8
6.4

« 97. 700

80

78.160

6.8

4.1

5 536. 765

81

435. 5,54

37.9

22.9

1.591.280

.59

939.259

81.6

49.4

"^ These percentages were estimated by liiolofiists and ecoiiomi.'its who are tlioroufilil.v
familiar with land use. agriculture, and wildlife habitat in each State and were based upon a
stiidy of each class of land.

-The fijrures in this column show only the acreage providin.i; food and cover: tliey do
not consider quality of food and cover which really determine the wildlife carrying
capacity of the area.

'Data from the in:'>5 agricultural census.

♦ Compiled from Part TIT of the Supplementary Report of the I.,and Planning Cnnimittee.
National Resources Board. i)p. .S5-4S.

° Agricultural land not in farms is really greater than shown because considerable other
land is grazed by domestic animals and some other land is used for crops, particularly in
urban .-ireas and on Indian reservations.

28

CIRCULAR 6 3 6, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

T.\BLK 8. — Estimated acreage providitiff food and cover for wildlife, hy classes of

land. 1935 — Continued

Ownership

Total
area

Per-
cent-
age
now
pro-
viding
food
and
cover

Providing food and cover

Class of land

Area

Per-
cent-
age of
all food

and
cover

Per-
centage
of total

land

area
of the
United
States

Nonagricultural:

1,000 acres

Percent

1,000 acres

Percent

Percent

Urban

Highways

175 percent private. _
Public

6 9.840
« 17. 787
« 64. 055

7 3.810
8 12. 919

8 51. 400

» 1. 502

10 389

10
75
70
90
90

75
75
40

984
13. 340
2,838
3.429
11.627

38,550

1.127

156

.1
1.2
.3
.3
1.0

3.4
.1

(11)

.1
A

State parks

National parks and monu-

Public

■ do .

'.2
.6

ments .

Indian reservations

Army reservations

Navy reservations...

_....do

do

do

2.0
.1

(11)

Total

101. 702

71

72. 051

6.4

3.8

Public

Private

Forest and woodland not grazed. .
Do

12 36. 799
12 116.573

70
90

25. 759
104.915

2.2
9.1

1.3
5.5

Total

153, 372

85

130. 674

11.3

6.8

Public -

Other nonagricultural land

13 55. 466
13 1. 397

15
10

8.320
140

('■) '

.4

Other nonagricultural land

Private

(11)

Total. .

56, 863

15

8,460

. 7

.4

All nonagricultural land

311,937

68

211.185

18.4

11.0

Total land area of the

1,903,217

60

1, 150. 444

100.0

60.4

United States

All private-owned land (74.9 per-

1,424. 720
478. 497

57
' 69

819, 287
331, 157

71.2
28.8

43.0

cent of United States)
All public-owned land (25.1 per-

17.4

cent of United States)

6 Data from unpublished reports by O. E. Baker. U. S. Department of Agriculture.

' Data from the National Resources Board's Recreational Uses of Land in the United
States, prepared by the National Park Service, Part XI of the Supplementary Report of
the Land Planning Committee, p. IJi'.

^ Data from publications of the U. S. Department of the Interior.

» Data from U. S. War Department Statistical Report, .July lO.",".

1" Data from U. S. Navy Department, Federal-owned Real Estate Under Control of the
Navy Department.

^ Less than 0.05 percent.

^-Oljtained by subtracting grazed forest and woodland not in farms from the total
forest and woodland not in farms in the United States as given by the National Resources
Board Report. Fart VIII of the Supplementary Report of the Land Planning Committee,
p. 78. Some of it is in wildlife refuges.

" Obtained by subtracting grazed nonforest or woodland not in farms from the total uon-
forest or woodland not in farms in the United States as given by various Government
reports. Some of it is in wildlife refuges.

IMPROVEMENT OF HABITAT ON AGRICULTURAL LANDS

Interest is currently expressed in the possibilities of improving
"wildlife habitat on agricultural lands. Table 4 indicates the per-
centage of agricultural land on which farm managers and conserva-
tionists believe it would be economically feasible to improve wildlife
habitat in accordance with present recommended land use practices.
The degree of practicable improvement is variable and the estimates
include the spheres of influence as well as the areas actually treated.

Table 4 indicates that 58 percent of the land in farms. 90 percent of
the agricultural land not in farms, and 70 percent of the nonagricul-

GAME AND WILD-FUR PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION

29

tiiral land is not providing the quantity of desirable wildlife habitat
that could be realized by economical and feasible management. The
percentages also indicate that approximately 84 percent of the wildlife
habitat considered economically feasible of improvement is on agri-
cultural land, with such land not in farms presenting the greatest
possibilities for wildlife habitat improvement. An insjjection of the
uses made of nonagricultural land shows that there is little possibility
of habitat improvement on this land. Privately owned land provides
more than 71 percent of the wildlife habitat that is economically prac-
ticable for improvement.

GAME AND W^ILD FUR PRODUCED AND HARVESTED ON AGRICULTURAL LANDS

As all of the estimated favorable habitat of farm game, approxi-
mately 50 percent of that of forest and range game, and about 40
percent of that of migratory game, is agricultural land, it appears that
at least 80 to 85 percent of the game has been produced on agricultural
land as defined in this publication. Indications are that in recent
years farm game has constituted a|)proximately 68 percent of th^ kill,
forest and range game 21 percent, and migratory game 11 percent.

Table 4.

-Estiiiiated acreage on ivhich it is considered econoniicaUi/ feasible
to iinprore food and cover for -wildlife, by classes of land. 19'i5

Ownership

Total
area

Percent-
age
• econom-
ically
feasible
to im-
prove for
food and
cover '

Economically feasible to
improve for food and
cover

Class of land

Area ^

Per-
cent-
age of

all

food

and

cover 2

Per-
cent-
aee of
total
land
area
of the
United
States

Agricultural laml:
Land in farms:

Cropland ._

1,000 acres
3 415, 335
? 409, 805
3 185, 475
3 43.900

Percent
30
67
90
90

1,000 acres
124. 601
275, 863
166. 928
39. 510

Percent

9.6

21.2

12.8

3.0

Percent
6.5

Open pasture

do

14 5

Woodland _

All other land

-_do

do

8.8
2.1

Total

1,054,515

58

606. 902

46.6

31.9

Public

Land not in farms:

Forest and woodland^razed.

* 132, 612

* 143. 100

* 163, 353
* 97, 700

90
90

90

90

119,350
128.790

147.018

87, 930

9.2
9.9

11.3

6.7

6.3

Do

Private

6.8

Nonforest and woodland
grazed . _ .

Public

Nonforest and woodland
grazed

Private

4.6

Total

' 536, 765 90

483. 088

37.1

2.5. 4

All agricultural land..

1,591.280 68

1,089,990

83.7

57.3

^ These percentages were estimated by biologists and economists who are thoroughly
familiar with land use, agriculture, and wildlife habitat in each State and were based
upon a study of each class ol' l.ind.

-The figures in this column show onlv the acreage on which it is cou.sidered economically
feasible to impro\e food and cover, liiey do not pretend to consider (|uality of food and
coveT' wliich really determine the wildlife cirrying cai)aeity of the area.

3 Data from the T.).",.") agiicnltural census.

M"omi)iled from I'art II of Ihe Suiiplenieiitai-.v Report of the Land I'lanning Committee,
National Resources Board, pp. .■!.'>-4.S.

''Agricultural land not in farms is ri';ill\ l.iriier than shown here Itecause considerable
other land is grazed by domestie animals, and some other land is used for crops, particularly
in urban areas and Indian reservations.

30

CIRCULAR 636, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Table 4. — Estimated acreage on ichich it is considered economical! ij feasible to
improve food and cover for wildlife, by classes of land, J935 — Continued

Ownership

Total
area

Percent-
age
econom-
ically
feasible
to im-
prove for
food and
cover 1

Economically feasible to
improve for food and
cover

Class of land

Area 2

Per-
cent-
age of
all
food
and
cover -'

Per-
cent-
age of
total
land
area
of the
United
States

Nonagricultural land:
Special uses

Urban

Highways

Railroad rights-of-way

State parks...

National parks and monu-

jk ments

'Indian reservations

Army reservations

Navv reservations . . - . .

f 25% public

1,000 acres

Percent

1,000 acres

Percent

Percent

\75% private _

Public

Private

Public

do

do

do

do

« 9, 840

" 17,787

9 4, 055

• 3. 810

^ 12.919

^51,400

9 1. 502

i» 389

20

75
75
80
80

75
80
50

1,968
13, 340
3,041
3,048
10, 335

38. 550

1.202

194

.2

1.0

, 2

.2

.8

3.0

.1

(11)

.1

^2
. 2
.5

2.0
.1

(-')

Total .

101.702

70

71, 678

5. 5

3.8

Public

Forest and woodland not grazed.

12 36. 799
12 116. 573

70
90

25, 759
104. 915

2.0
8.0

1.3

Do

Private

5.5

Total

153,372

85

130, 674

10.0

6.8

Public

Other nonagricultural land. .

13 55. 466
13 1, 397

20
15

11.093 ' .8 1 .6

Do

Private

210 1 (11) 1 (11)

Total

5fi, 863

20

11, 303

.8 .6

All nonagricultural land

311.937

68

213, 655

16.3 11.2

Total laud area of the
United States

1.90.3.217

68

1, 303. 646

100. 0 1 - 68. 5

All private-owned land (74.9% of

1.424,720
478, 497

66

77

933, 264
370, 382

71.6

28.4

49.0

United States)
All public-owned land (25.1% of
United States)

19.5

" Data from unpublished reports by O. E. Baker, U. S. Department of Agriculture.

'■ Data from the National Resources Board's Recreational Uses of Land iu the United
States, prepared by the National Park Service, Part XI of the Supplementary Report of
the Land Planning Committee, p. 122.

' Data from publications of the U. S. Department of the Interior.

^ Data from U. S. War Department Statistical Report, July 1937.

i" Data from U. S. Navy Department, Federal-owned Real Estate Under Control of the
Navy Depaj-tmenr.

^' Less tlrhn 0.05 percent.

'^ Obtained by subtracting grazed forest and woodland not in farms from the total forest
and woodland not in farms in the United States as given by the National Resources Board
Report. Part VIII of the Supplementary Report of the Land Planning Committee, p. 78.
Some of it is wildlife refuges.

13 Obtained by subtracting grazed nonforest or woodland not in farms from the total
nonforest or woodland not in farms in the United States as given by various (iovernnient
reports. Some of it is wildlife refuges.

EA^dence indicates that about 70 percent of the game reported
killed was taken on agricultural land and about 30 percent on non-
agricultural land. This does not take into account game taken by
farmers and farm boys hunting on their own or rented agricultui-al
lands nor does it consider that no Corn Belt, Wheat Belt, or Range
State is represented in the data on hand. It is believed, therefore,
that if a re])resentative sample of the total bag of game were avail-
able, it would indicate that more than SO percent of the game taken
durino- recent vears was killed on atrricultural land. However, in

GAME AND WILD-FUR PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION 31

u few iioiia<iricultural States, estimates range as low as 80 to 40 per-
cent. The estimate of 80 percent is supported by the statements of
man}^ game departments that 90 percent or more of the hunting
licenses sold were used almost exclusively for hunting farm-game
species and that practically all nonlicensed hunters hunt farm-game
species exclusively.

The unit weight of most forest and range game is, of course, much
greater than that of farm game. However, a considerable number
of units of forest and range game are taken on agricultural land, and
many farm species are taken on nonagricultural land. Thus, even on
a weight basis, the relationships noted would not be materially
changed.

Estimates of the number of fur pelts taken in the various States
were arrived at by using available trappers' reports, in conjunction
with State game department records of furs handled by dealers, and,
in a few instances, game department estimates of fur animals taken
by trappers. This ap|)eared to be the most practical way of meeting
the situation.

Classifying the catch on the basis of the effective range inhabited
by the species as shown in table 2, it was found that approximately
27 percent was farm fur animals (not fur farm animals), less than 1
percent forest and range fui' animals, 71 percent land and water
species, and a^jproximately 1 percent wilderness animals. It is esti-
mated that half of the forest and range fur animals and a third or
more of the land and water fur bearers were associated with agri-
cultural land. Thus, it seems reasonable to believe that 50 to 55
percent of the fur animals taken during recent years were dependent
in some degree upon agricultural land for their most productive
habitat.

Information indicates that approximately 40 percent of the fur ani-
mals harvested were taken on agricultural, and about 60 percent on
nonagricultural, land. Furs produced on agricultural lands seem to
be superior to those from other types of lands. However, in each
class of pelts the lower grades are represented by the greatest num-
bers. This is particularly true in the case of land and water fur
animals, where muskrat pelts probably make up 75 percent of the
total number of skins. The same situation exists, however, for all
classes of pelts, with the exception of wilderness fur animals. It is
probable that careful analysis would not materially change these con-
clusions as to the importance of agricultural land in the production
of wild furs.

This would indicate that agricultural land is much less important
in the production and harvest of fur animals than of game, i)robably
because the marsh-dwelling muskrats. most of which are taken by
professional trappers, make up a very huge part of the annual take of
fur animals.

HUNTING AND TRAPPING OPPORTUNITIES PROVIDED BY AGRICULTURAL LANDS

To appraise the imj)oi'tance of agricultural lands in providing
hunting and tra})i)ing o{)p()rtunities, table 5 was prepared. It was
necessary to subti-act from the total land area of the United States
certain lands that cannot be used for hunting or trapping. The only
colunm for which authoiitative statistics are not available is coluniu

32 CIRCULAR ^3 6, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

6. dealing with farmstead protection. A footnote explains how these
fi«rures were determined.

For the United States as a whole two fiofures are given in column
20 for the total ])otentially hnntable area devoted to agriculture.
One indicates 73.36 percent, the other 87.65 percent. As no data were
available for private nonfarm grazing lands by States, it was neces-
sary to make this distinction. The latter figure is the more nearly
correct of the two.

In an effort to give some indication of the hunting pressure in the
various States, columns 21 and 22 were added.

GAME .\XD WILD-FUR PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION

33

O CO o o -^ X
*- cc rr :;: ic t-- ic

tcc^ — CMroi-t'*oo^':ooic;»c05

Tj- u. .-^ — -.-^ ^j 1.. Tj' _* ^-.' li. -.w. i-jj w- li. WJ ;^ »"- I"- ^— r^ ^^ OS at/ ^' atJ

^trt^i— iOiOOTQCOCC»C»

X Tf C4 «

J O CO C-l «'^

• OOO— *C^»OQOO!i3'^aOO^"OS'— CC'fl*^C000O^'<»'^00'— c^*ooc<*

) t^ lO c- — — = — — . . -^

lOO — c^-— Os>-T030C^c>0'-'^'^coQOco»^-^caot--r-x:c:

-J CO OC — . Tj- 2" t

i O a> O GO C^ — CO '-' CS

rx'r-T

: CD — I- t* c^ -

jOiOt--^-— 'CC'^r^CJcc

;o;M»cc^u::'<rC5'*:occc

'^GOi^t>-t--c*cpcooco:DQOr-cc<— ios'-"O^Hcaoooosooi'-itcr-*oc^HOiOF

^CCCO»CC^Tf«<£;coO«OCS«DOcOOC«30C<l'

ioao»o»ooooow2--^r^i^-toc^^c^icoic-^

.C^^iCC^C*a?0'-<0SC00&"^C0»CC0OO00»OO0i

aoCirc-*'t^ — OC5CC

jiOcC— '■^■^coi

. » '^ — to -^ -

• 'troicco';::©'— xrcc^Oio

.■^C^Oir;rfT^*0X>OO3iCS3iX'^C^XOcCr^t-*O:0X-^»0iCOOiC0SCiI>-0iC^0S'^»C

C^ C^l c^

CS CO :o CCM -f —

M CO — CO CO C^

■fcjOOl-^»C>*COC^

o^xocst^MCSt^ocooioocooc^^toascsi-^rocs^ciooooir^eo

COOM>-'-HTt«COCSCS— •Oi0tCC0C**C0CSCS»0-^C0'-HC0'— "C»10CO»OOCOCOCS'^'-"i-«-^COC^

: o X -,D "* o !:o -^ '

- _ _. . .- _. .OC0iCiOC5X.-'CD'*»0-^t"-XX0i^S. -- -- .

■ ic^cs — c)csicxt^t^?t^cci — »ccsiccsoicO'^^;

.^c>cMt--ir:-^-H — ocoicioc5X.-'cD'*»o-^t"-xxoi^cocociasco'^r-.a>'«j'Cs

' CS o Oi o o '^^ '

(Z o -n* «'^ocs-rrcoxcoxco-^»0'^^b-»ot^coC4;ooo05CsoocooC5icooxooics»c

> <35 ■«*« Oi »C O —

xio^rot^:Dr^a>"*^csiocC'»c-<rai-^cocscs>coasOiOt^ioco

CS -^ -^ -H

*i-icoi— «oaxco»o^-^:Dco-, .
;0«cS'^'<»*i>>t^cocscO'-tiocoi

'O^o-— '^lOQOi-f^OiOcO'— •■^cO»oCS:st^eoC3'^x^-i»-HO

3t^iC'-HCDTt*OSI>-C

^-^oot-'icoscsoiOi'^o>o»e^

5^ ,-< (M ^ —

? o -<?• c» o -^ "^ o •** X '-o o CS 'XJ --i:> X c-) -* :d o -sC -4" X CS -^ -— o c;* 3" X X X -^ X ^» ^5 o -.c
.0'5'^'5'5'vr- — ot^t-Ci — cst-csioxcscot^cscoi-^': cic; xx-r-— mc-jiccccsu:

s^cicocscooCiO— • — t-iC-*--rcoc^t^O^'— '— 'CO — — T— r::^ro'-tro — r^i-trooco

-CSCO»CXGC-^CSI"-"<r»^"3;ECSOUI
5cOOiOX'-'X)CSOX050XCOOO'

■♦CO rfM'co .— "-^i— 'r-»cxx;

^XCSCOXt'-XCOC''
— < »C t-^ CS h- CO -x

^^

-T

X

^

^, .-

^

—

■rp

;^

ro

■--

■.-.

—

L".

^

C."

.-■"

■^

O X

CO

CO

;xoiOiXcc!:Dcsocot;:-x«o«0:-'30csox)i

■«CO— 'CSXrOO^-"— '"^OcOt— 'CCO»OiOSCD'^C^<

-^CSl^CS-^Ocor^M'^COOCMOCO

s^ooocsocsccv^cc-^^osr^ec

oost^cox>— 'COt^toO'^*cr-"^xict->cxr^x — — r^i— ;5t"'CS
S'tCCScoc^'^t^X"^'-' — Oco-^— ''-•xr- :c^o^■t•-coxait^^5 —
r^lCCs^^cs— itcr*:D!C'— 't^i"^— *^^cox^-^cosc:^^ -fX-r-r-r—

5 — 5-' cr. ro H c; S CS CO

-r X — — — ir: y; — X "*

**ic.— 'Cscsxcsco'^'^O"^'— Cdr^cs-^x— 'icocot^

Wt^OrOiOCOCSCSCS^-^COiCCOI^CJX'^^OtOOCSCO

—!,_ —.^.—1 --CS t^coro — -— — •-"cococO'-'

X* — •' ic" O CO t-^ -^ -^* O — ' O Ci r: 3 — X* -r -r l~ :

ocs CO •* :c O

i-crii-cc:; — coiocs

— 5 '^ ~ c - * t. t ^ s -S a — ^ •— .S t. V, ~ c i .^- s

— I. t. a c 0-— .v^_. ^ -.^.-; c_,»_.»..^^ — — ^

, a-, c

. lie

f f ^ r c .= ^

yy.y.y.y.

34

CIRCULAR 6 3 6, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICUI^TURE

O

-MCDoocO'^fN'-H.-ir^O'-'

05

a;

»C C^ « O 00 O »0 GO CC

■w'*cooooo»ot^50»-Haocs

SStOC^'^QOOSCOOCO-^'^

'•^cciT-ioor^cc'^oicc

- Oi CS O 05 CI

c0(:0;COOQ000"^a0O
OOOiiOiOOOOOC^OsOiTf

OOOOO'^GO-^-rf

Tt'oxcooiC^C'i'rr

^'

Oi-«

t-- QO Oi Oi r— c^i »o

gi-itOO'-^GO^CCh-QOO

>o

,629
.630
,328
,617
,200
.856
.961
.305
.517
.763

m

»^ CC r-o Oi ^ =

C3

a

n

>

CC
C5

a

T-

-1

t^

m

O.

o

hi

<

03

(NGOIMCD

oo

00 t-

co o
o cc

CC "^

:"»c c»f lo io c^

05 '^•-i CO CO

>.-ioos»coot^r-c

>- t- cd o

o ti^ c/ -^^ 'i-' — '-^ ►-*

o b

.2 >.

a: o

If

'^'^t^OiCC-^00— iiOiC-rCi
i^iCOiCDcOCOCOCCOOOO^-

i O CO O a: Oi Cs" i--^ 4C O C> rr t'^

i^CO.— CI — 1-H .-. ^^

C^t--05COCC»0«OCOC^-^'— I-*
oc«5C^r^0005'-H»CC<»t:C'— 'l-^CS

V- Qo" OS cd' 00 o oi" 00 Oi t^ o" oi" -^

WtC^OO'^CiOO^Ot^iC-^O
CO -^CC Oi"cC* lO CO »o'iO -^

<oo

oo

u.

^^

1 cooo

%>

y

' 1 ocn

CO ,

■^

I SS CO CO W ■* 1-H

oooeoo 'Ooc^iooo

CD CO »C CD t-^ ■ CD O CS a: Oi o
CS GO 00 -^f CO . (N (M iC iC 00 O

- o o CD -^ -^ ,-, rr CO — ' OO cs

t~50 .

'00

t- . 1

1 "^

rM

^H

■<** 00

^

05

in -^

sooot^o

o-*e — tc
t^o — I oc

OOO 05 oc cc
o>o ooo
; o o o "<*' o;

f.- 00 O ^H ic CO

C^'-c'TOO

^ !C cc O WD

o--- oc ^

jOOOOO

05 -^00 ^ O

'^ CD 00 t^

■^ t-- O 00 CO
OCDOC ^O

GAME AND WILD-FUR PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION

35

o»ccDOt--Cia:"^t^'— •GCioc^'^oOGor--c4cc-^r--CiOir--<t'cDcct~-GO'--icr-r-i30

CDC^'-''— ■t^ — u^C^OOO-H.— '01»caJC00lC^CX)CiOQ0C^c0lr-.'— <ciot-ooc^»ct^a--

050iOCDOicDiCOCi»Ci— 'CCCJI— Ci'^cDOl'— 'CCiCt'-iC'COiC

O CD O O

CDC0OC^C0CCr-'M00»-<>J^OCCO0000'--O'-Hf0CDCD'^C0iCiCcD00'—rri— tCCClO'^-n'

jor^ccfMrro:'— 'OOt^cJOr-ccGO

:-^ ^ <N t^ Ol CD c

:ocoo»cooiooii.

r*0:C:cDMO'-'C0-^cD»CO'^Ci'^GCCC0:cDI-*OC0CD>C-— iC'4r^OOiO»OQOC

<C-)^__,— .--J^QOCOKtlMC

CSl CD ^ -^ 00

;SS§§

00 ^ oo i O t^ .^ OOO 00 ^ o

ri O oo .OOO O— OOO

S

218

211

5,231

1,277

125, 566

2, 265

224
12

44l"

505
6,966

60'
91, 464

19, 741

1,828

207

9,641

1

•— '»f3C400>— «OMO ■'— 'T
O O -^ I— ' O CS 1— I o o o<

O'-HCDOOOlO-^'^OOOiC.-'COOCCCDCSCOr- -^c^i
OCO— lO'COOO'-'OOO'—OOOO'— ti— <i-« Oi-^

■ CJOoo ccrrtnoooccDcco — •— ir-.i— (OC<ii— '0^'-<t^

■^f-'CO 00'^O5«CDCOiOI--.--'t-OltCOlM"^^00t^C^

Ot^O t-'^OC'»CiCOOTfcDOOOC^--Hi-.OCOCDOOOOO

f" O O CD' lO* c^' cf Tt-^ t^ lO

ic -— * »i~^ cT .-<' cT o -f' cj

-. O CO CD O oo 00
■ l' CO — ' OS oo' cd" CO c^' ■^" CD*

^

03 t^

o

ot^

OS'O

o

oo

. o-^ o

-*

' CO

Tj. lO '

.— 1 .—I

"^

CD

"

■^

oc^

.c»

M

T)<

lO

oot-oo

CJ

rt tc

COM

00

V-,00

c»

OiOi

O

. CD 00 CD

, 00 O "^

.*

ec

t-t~

-OOO

CO

^

— . C-)

M

mco

^

oo:

00

t^

t^

00>O

'°.

r»- 1^

m (Ml-.

COOCDC5

rt^OcC'l" — oo«^
^OOOrtOO'-iOC^

b-iOO^OO'<*^C^OOOOCCCOCO
CDi-HOOtN'-iCOOcDOOt^CC

gs?

1 .^

s.

1 leo

32, 648

18

30, 409

8,607

148, 860

20, 500

1,409

25, 000

1, 065, 820

3, 240

593

5, 500

925

190. 606

iC CO

71

3,848

KiO, 067

39. 0,50

2. 200

1.5, 345

3.36. 919

221,949

1. 220. 000

191, 395

si
§1

o

i

oo"

3

£

t^cooo

t~0.-H

?5g5S2???5S gSSSS

'2g . iSSSSS

00 00
,-1 o

■

00

^ Tt<

.—1

ir:ooc-»c^>c arc^ooosi

oci»o ai-^c^r^oot^o lo^-c

C^l OC CC QCi OC ^ QO Ol — CO

Tj. ^ ^ iO o r^ (:

o — — 00 — ^ ■

00 ^ cc (N c^J o o

-.r ^- »c cc cc
c -< o >c —

lo a; r-i CO o yr

O— 05 —

O (N OC O

O C^ O "t

lO C^' ^* CO

S>>ca

.;< c

w ce

->-.S;

c K f fc. 3: a;

'5 S c s .

> ~ c: * S

2

c'S i
Syd _

bi

36

CIRCULAR 636, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

t^O-^c£»COiOOCO

— cX-* coco

_,

05*0 Tf 01

Oir-4C»^ioo;x-»c

OS^J'QOr'.^ft— — .«5

1 x:

s

ft5l^F-OI^CCOOXO:000'-*»OOeDiOOt^OD»0<C^»r:iol^C^C^01PCC^^-ft^>CC^

.■i:TO«oo-*t^ o-woc— Nt^e^o— amaot^m- t- ci^ o

®ffl c —

O)

:§ « d " -

W Q]

♦-.— «£

c^

«B

a^-e'*

M en

— ^ .

a «T3 .,

•— w qj ^

•^ciot^'^^oooaooo(N^(Nt^iciOTfqD-^(Ma:»ct^oCiir:ccccoD«^coo2C»oi?:i^

c^

S r-To i^oT^h-'^'c^'o crroo'o^'cc o c*D c4"o"t^'<r ^'-^'-^'tt CI »c M*cc 00 ai adcc oc cT

St^C^«CC3CCl — ^t^>CtC>OiO-xaD^O'i^00CI^-WOM "O — — lOOC^CO

Jg. — ««— - ^fq — ^ _,o— ^

_ .

,

, __^icr^o^cscioococc-^oo^O(MgoocO'^»coo^'VCiooooo-^ai»cccx) — cc-^

s ^

3

fc-gcct-oocNcDceooTC — o«oceM«o--=t^oor^^«ooctcto>r;Tj.Tf-^ac^iM

— . >-

o

D„ ?^ ^-: 00 d r~ o CC m t^ ^-: ^-; c^ c^' o c^ oi CC « o: -J i^ GO « o CC o ■o -* t-: c>i d K o: c c

^"lOt^iOfOOCOt-— ccccCCTOJOOX^CCOlcCr-tfcCCCOCI-Ot^C-^WCSi-CCCa-. CEC-.

■^ CC

2 *

-. —

oocsr^ooc^acccccc^cC'^3-ri^oocr-^Trt^ — ccc^ccoiOcc»c — -ct^tNC)-^

c

o

t~00O>CTrt~M«00U^C-l(MC-l:C^C-)r0CCOCC0CQ0m00t^M!NXt^-CCCC-OI<.

c<i-<r^i^Mu^u^oc"^cc>/:c^X35 — — ci'Tco — cc>ct-Nc^ic »- = ^rccu-oc

_

s

5 CO ir:' — ' i/;" •ri t - >r;' en tc t-T — ' cc 00 c ^' cf «' t - (3? m' c qo' t--' cc" «' cc d re -c d d d d d

1- o) c — — "^ C32 CC — 0-- "C cr. o c 35 ci 'T 3-. — CC — t~ m i~ CC ic CC ■/: i^ I- r-: ^1 -M re ce

2 =

15

'-'o:a:esc«i«t^c-;t~«-HicooM>r:t^oi-cC'.-:t~'^oocct^ — ooi-cescr. — c:c-.
■-.o'i^"<cc<5'oo"-"' >c' c^'«'c»t-rdio" doc" 'rcc--r>co:co'd^f>ct~'" --■--" CO dddoiN

> *j

— iCC^^Tf C^ cc C-J — CO re — — ■ C^ — . CO CO ■«• -w co^.-<co«co

'5

3

'^ cot- ' — i-H ' :

'<'' ceo CO lO'O

fc.'g leo lOiM 1 1 io>-i ; 1

1 I 1 1 10>0 1 . it~ 1 It- ,S

{O

(^ g JO ■-* ' ■■* j 1

1.1 "-S-CO '-"I^CO'C^

w

■a

B_

^

M

bio

■B S

(3>

o o>o ■ ■ oo 1 '

'. ! ' ' oos ' '50 ' io 'OS

3

0.2-

03

.■.i.-a-Tf. .00..QO1K.

be

a

|3 |tiI 'ind' '

■0-* ' ■

1 ... .1- 10 .-«..« iOO

00 1 1 los 1^ lo

«

OS ' '

I . . . .coo ; .0 . .■>»< .00

03

Lm

CO

,r,- : <N .

. 1 I j 'm^ . ; lo" j 1^" j

1

bli

, ^ lO IM O

' 'co I !

. ' . Tf< ^H .CO

&

a, 8 M ; "O c^ 1

1 10 1 1

• .liOiQO 'OS. .11.

C3

5

: ,53 j j

' 1 1 ' it-: iei 1 'Id 1 1 ; 1 1

..... .CO 1^ 1 . . 1 .

>»

00*

OS !■* o

■ :« I ;

I'l' 0 0 Ol'llll

1

■?

!■* iiOlM '

iOO • '

11.. t- tC O..11.

—

00 IM ' — ' CO ■ 00 ■ ■

... I X N ,"*;;'';

:^

«

c

I 1 1 ' -O-" N |co ! ' 1 1 1

0?

t

c3

c

TT< . to 00 rr ' o 1 1

; ; I , : f^ , "" ; '^ I 1 1 1 1

' CO -^r-^ o ' '

. . . . ■ >o" . os" . ,-r . . . . .

£

.... .CO . i—i . . . . .

, ^ CO ^o ' 'co '

li'''c<ic4io':c<i''il'

>

J^^ICO OCOIit'OO'l

. I-. . ..^is<^ .lO 1 . . 1 1

3

C

o

l.litoo't-^ii^.ll..

S

^

^

M

t^

. CO wo >n ' '.

'i''xcD-H''col'll'

lO ' to cc , I cc 1 >

CO-<J'CO.'-*.'ii.

t

g C cso: ^ ^ CO 1 1

.... INC0OS..00..II.

a-

£

t; «o" ^" s" ' ' 2' ; i

00 ^'t^ .t>r , . . . .

liiCOOSiO lOSil.ii

-^

El4

"^ ?5 35 s ' "^ ; I

1... X^.^ .00

1 3

0" ■ c:" d

, 1 0 ' •

1 1 . 1 ^ CO •*" 1 . t-T I 1 i 1 1

. 1

3

S

fe'e ' ' , , :

! ! 1 1 I ! 1 ! i ! ; ' 1 ' '

a

'i.S : , ; ; ; :

! ! '

2

C

r-H

P

O

s

^-^

1 >

111

c

o:

s

1 ! i 1 1 1 1 i i 1 i ! 1 ! 1 i

OQ 1 1 1 1 1 i

■:§

tt

K 1 1 1 ! 1 !

>

^ i i i i i i

;;::!;:;;;;;:;;;

£

i^>OiOCCN>OO500CO(N'rX — O^-loCCOO^iOW— .rJ-OSCOOOCMtJ-Cit-COXCCCO^

aD

!L^cC'OcccoiMccccX'»'iMococ:xco — =:cci-xt-cccocooi--cc>cc-<-wcc=cc =

C

j

5

io

XCl-'0«XCCCCCqcC'-0C=-cr'0OXI^ ^I- — COC-lX^OSCO-OCCCl-CCC-Jut

t-XC»05 — t-COCO00CCC^C<<«C0^CSCOCCCCCXXCOCXIMCSXt~CCCO-irCOC

0^

c

»— '

o^inSi»-iox>oioxoc3s'0(MX3so — c-i-j-co — co'Ot^-i'coco — 'Tcc CO cc ;;■.-: c:

'3

.2

^:ccd-"!Nco-rC>o-a^--J■•-'dx■d-T■o^■^7■l-dc^"dx•|-co■ddd•«ddddd-?■■

>

CJIMCO— XMCiCC— CKt-Oc C:=:3-. Cl — 3; — cC'^l~col-iocccCint-r-~tri — coco

-:< 0; t- <N — c: -O I- CO t^ C-) — u- z ^t ■.- I, c; t- CC "t t- ut X I~ C-- -O X -r t- c; 3c cc =: —

^ cc" co" >o" X d — " lo" im" cc" x" t- d <:' d ic' -f co' — -o d d c' d co" co" — ' — d d d 1 -.' d oi

— — — mM oq cs — CO -T — — C-) — CO ^ ^ ro CO — CO

3 «

, ^ CDCOCO^I— CC<MOS»0>OCC^C»0'^OCO — f-tcCCOClC^iOOOCCC^C^COXT^CCrO —

>;.^-WOCOCOCCOCCC>OiCoScqcCM>OIXOC:t~ = t->OCO — CtOTfiO-a-o-. NCM^O)

^"gS§§if^gSS§Sg^'gii§5?f;ieSfefefe§§g§S£-#'5'fe5S

Tl-t-OCO>OXCC— ICC — CSX-^-X3-. 3-. C03:'OXOC03:OXIO — 1 XM — C

CON^ioiXTr^Ot ^O-OC^IO — c3c3cCCO0CC0(N-cr(MI->O0;c0 3-. uei-CC — ut

1~4

OS-HMCO'-cCOXCO^XXXt-C-Jcci-OCOOCCC-cri-CCCONXCC — CCXCCCCCCCM

^■^

S OS 05" d' x" d' "o" d' — " cc" cc" t-" co" x' — * uo" x' d x" t-' -»' d" d d co" co' ^" — " d cT I -' — ■ ro' d d

ajS^

i-ifeX.iMcciocscO'j-cci — ccccx — xoccoa.cr.coxocio — >rM'-oo>x3c3-. 3c

B§l

_^co-.oo5 — cooxx — cco;x=oxcoi-cocicoco05M-"or-cococi'-ou-:u^_3c-<r
■' ood dd~dc^"— •" aTco'x'cTx" d^x'ddr-' »o'co'c^*co*o* 00 ^'"o 04 10 CO x'cc^d do' d

M-S-COXCO (M CO ■* CO — CO ^ OllN — • CO ■«• (N CO CO ■«< CC CO (M <N CO O) CO

l-i 1 C3

]

!c „ , .E 3

lllllil

K C —~ ~

OQ

a

.2 'c/ig

0

c

>

c

0! ,~

= 55

il.EJ.I§-f ?

c o S^ b^ o!
os-c^-ccjr^

GAME AND WILD-FUR PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION

37

C^ »C CC ■-< O *-■ ^ Ol t-tiO

OW»-*C000005COCDC^COO'^

lO ■^'" h^ :c •<»■' oT c^r lO" t-T cT o" ■-'' o" o"

^ ^ ^ c^

OCDCCTT'-S'M't^OCOQOOCSiOCO

• :C c: t'- 00 t^ ^ ^ *

o -^cc

^c;xc;--•c^^^^^^t--•— IOCS

^' :^' (N TJ-* i^' cxf CO »o cc 00 »£f trT — ' 1 ^

O C5 tC M"" CO CO IC* tC OC O QO'

c^-

Troc-^Oi*ccoQOooos»r;!:

GC^C-^X^— 'COCC*n — C

O CC tC ^* CC iC CO (N oi X (-^ O 1^ •
^ i-O -V X; X I* X — X: ^ CO -i cc i

Oi CO O X tC t- -^ CO CO X C^ »C X CD
i0XC^^C^lCC00l'<*<t--XX'^O

— •oxcifoc — x»-"::co — Occ

>-o" ccT CS' '^' C^' X* CI* x' CC ZC -^ '^ ^ Oi

X X '^ t^ ^'^ "^ X t^ CO o — r^ cc C5
coc;(NccxcoOr--:Ci:c-^co-*'X^

■•O c^i ^ ^ — c ^' co' ic fo' X o"

— -- CS M

CO CO
CO t^

IMCN

CO CO

4-^-^ ■l|.l^i|

S,-=^~S«-^s "SI'S 7 S^ c

o fc

C x c
- ^ -*-

«i £'

-^

,^

,^

ir-

—

c_:

—

C^ CO

f.'

'—

— ■

^^

~

--r

^

X

X

CJ

OS

X X X X X

-V-

-

^

-r^

.r-■v^

^

..-

_

re

—

r.

—

_

-'.

'.J

-r

X t^

■-r

■V

f'

*■

_j

-f

— .

_J

-s-

-r

-.l -^'

—

,--

uO

—

'-.

■•J

■^

—

—

»^-

-J

J-

-r

-f

r-<

■n*'

.^'

,^

^

_J

ir*

gjT

"

O

1—1

.s

c

«

«

1

K 5

5"

«:> MO.

cc +- r^

~ cc

:« OS.S

cjr.

Ǥ .2-r

:32

-'-s • oj " ir i:

oj OJ i. ^ c; ^
■OS i " O,

3-1- o'3-^£
CO G .

a; _. c o to - ^

c s i: . y^_ ,

ti — it - - -^

t-'c 5— a c O'^
" £ r" ^ tt'H

C H S > XJ=

o c x ?^ i = — —

lull's

ji^lfl^-cS

.|SS.^.V; =

C- C -^ _ K ^

r- M> ^ t a; 2
^ g t. 9 uc

s-^ S £ If 1 C

isi;.=il

n vol
close
d l)v
Il.lic
hp ai
that
a re
Ml tag

— xi 2.^ -'^ C

= ,, S s^ r rt S

■| ■■ = ^v; >-S

-g|?^'-l^

''' £ !!! S'^l-^s

G -- ci t- c c^-*-

— "T - . c a^— c

c-r-'c.I^

-.;r=t;5_c.;;-

"" 73 r a s o cs

•=5ci.y£a

ir = C r'C
S^ c^ j_ :: C a'

:-t:'a
+- c; ''y " c ^

Gj .^ X ct ^ ~ C

— a? ;;^.a

i C •< "5 i •- -' M

38 CIRCULAR 6 3 6, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Qj U i>

S fc n a^ a:

^il i. -: -■ « ■' o)

•ri "3; o o .. ^ x O ,w ^

H si's t,^'5"3 ~ t- i tt

i. <D C a,

" 3 ? '""

a ^V, S K -

T^rQ O)

2^

■9^ 3

'-',,. i o a 0^ 5 ■"

?■ S = a; ^ ri

o rt "^ ^ 3 Wj 3 S . o e"^ s i cs
a^^ ati'?, c S«w -■^- "^ '^ - E?

^c" 2--^~ as -■§ = t;i;S

?! o a o oao . ;:; <i ;: 9 <!-( ^ ■*-»

'O S •^-' n Qj ••* >i •- Ji: Cj - _ ^ m

^ SSat^^X*'!- 'IS -H -t^ --. a .
a)a).SMg.o^ iC*-^iSg-o

a ;S o) ni a " s ■'• "-•-;, i: 4- a .ii 01

iff^'^^ S_ .ji.a-' a >- fl K

wv-^ a'O'aaia'C"'""'^

,2 a -s +^ « o -3 -M j; bo—

'Tl rt rt 1 .,. a> _ c 1 C -J ■*

X

a;

2

u

3

!p

5

o

o

'S

w cSS ^^^■^ S^-- T.fci Spas

■2 a* £ ..---■^ S 3 '^ "^"^-S

"^ aS|-a|S2 ^1 -1^

-£•- .;:oji5^ a^ a cp*;

°-=a;»fj-2„'S a s ss S'^-g

^S'2|2'^£Sa).5 aa >iig2

32 OMcS ^S" =.50 !S>

game and wild-fur production and utilization 39
Problems in Production
limited productivity

The inherent antipathy of most wild creatures toward crowding; is
probabl}^ tlie most important of the many and diversified factors bear-
ing- on the production of game and wild fur on agi'icultural lands and
should be taken into account, when money returns to the landowner
are being considered.

There are isolated instances of farm-game species reaching a pro-
duction peak approximating 1 unit per acre under optimum condi-
tions. Even uncler such conditions not more than half of the game
and wild-fur animals present at the beginning of the fall hunting
season can be safely harvested annually. When populations are below
the optimum, the percentage of kill must be still lower if existence of
the species is not to be jeopardized.

Areas of the high productivity indicated are considered to have
game concentrations and are relatively small in extent, seldom if ever
equaling a county in size. Furthermore, they are the exception and
not the rule.

The kinds and quantity of wildlife that can be produced on the
various soil types and in the different climatic zones vary, as do agri-
cultural crops. In general, it follows that the potentialities for wild-
life production parallel farm-crop possibilities so far as they are
determined by natural conditions. Quantity production, however, is
not so easily achieved as in the case of domestic plants and animals.

The quantity of wildlife harvested annually within a State may be
illustrated by data compiled for Pennsylvania. The information on
game killed in Pennsylvania for 1937 and 1938, shown in table 6, was
obtained from Pennsylvania Game News.*^

Table 6. — Game killed hi PennHylvmna, 1937 and 1938

Game

Deer, legal males

Deer, antlerless

Bears

Rabbits, cottontails

Hares, snowshoe or varying _

Raccoons

Squirrels

Wild turkeys

Ruffed grouse

Season of
1937

39, 347

Closed

537

3, 074, 820

1 2. 420

29,842

1. 056, 408

6.619

177.683

Season of
1938

Closed

169. 986

381

4. 222. 659

' 2. 120

35, 790

1, 097. 660

6.722

222. 863

Game

Ring-necked pheasants.

Quail

Shore birds..

Wild ducks and geese...

Blackbirds

Woodcocks

Woodchucks

Total, all species.

Season of
1937

371, 526
105. 795
12. 657
16, 758
78.543
57. 244
(.■)

Season of
1938

511,132
109. 030
8.656
21,231
78, 078
49. 857
145. 163

5,030,199 I 6,681.328

' For this species it was necessary to use the Field Officers' estimates only.
2 No report obtained prior to 19.38 soa.'Jon.

Pennsylvania is recognized by sportsmen as one of the better game-
producing States of the eastern seaboard. There are more than 28,690.-
000 acres in Pennsylvania ; thus, in 1937 the State average was 1 unit of
game taken for each 5.7 acres, and in 1938, one unit of game for each
4.3 acres. The 55 percent of the State in farms produces by far the
greatest proportion of the game killed. Cottontail ralibits, pheasants,
and quail are undoubtedly bred and harvested chiefly on farmlands.

r<'niisylv;ini:i ';;im(> News. So|itoiiiliiM- T.i.30. ]). :?1.

40

CIRCULAR 636, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Some of the other species reported also are associated with ajiricuhiire
to some degree. This indicates that the higher vahied agricidtural
land produced moi-e than the State average but that the lower valued
land, such as might be considered economically feasible to own and
manage for the production of game, produced far less.

As Pennsylvania is in a fairly humid part of the United States, it
produces more imits of game per acre than many other sections of the
country. Information on the annual kill is not available for all re-
gions; therefore, the best that can be conjectured at this time is that the
Pennsylvania harvest of wildlife is equal to or above the average for
the countrv as a whole.

Figure 11. — There is no ground cover or possibility of forest reproduction in an
overgrazed woodlot. Practices like these destroy timber, soil, and wildlife,
leaving nothing for future generations.

CONFLICTS WITH CROP PRODUCTION

Reconmiended practices of game production are not always in
harmony with established farm practices. Providing food and cover
for wildlife requires that vegetative growth be available as to the
birds and mammals at all times of the year, yet farm practice fre-
quently dictates clean cultivation. (See figs. 3 and 4.)

Recommendations in the interest of Avildlife advocate leaving the
less productive parts of the farm to grow up to brush and weeds. The
use of hedgerows instead of more modern forms of fences, also of ad-
vantage to wildlife, is sometimes uneconomical and may involve cer-
tain hazards. Although some lands do not lend themselves to intensive
use without becoming subject to loss of soil fertility or erosion, the
fact remains that farmers strive to get maximum returns from their

GAME AND WILD-FUR PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION

41

lands. This frequently induces clean cultivation and the fullest use of
arable and pasture lands, sometimes to the detriment of wildlife habitat
and soil. (See figs. 5-12.)

The management and handling of farm crops at times conflicts with
the production of game. This is exemplified by the destruction of
pheasant nests in alfalfa fields. The ring-necked pheasant shows a de-
cided preference for this type of nesting site. Frequently the date of
first mowing occurs a week to 10 days before the time the eggs would
hatch. The destruction of nests has l:)een known to exceed 50 percent.
Many setting hens are killed.

Fic, ] I i_ — A well-managed woocUot is a good public and [irivate investment.
It provides soil protection, an excellent wildlife habitat, and a permanent
supply of woodland products.

Certain species of game birds and animals sometimes damage farm
crops; the more abundant they are the more pronounced their depre-
dations. Farmers are not likely to encourage these species (figs.
3 and 9). \ . .

The direct or indirect transmission of disease between wild and
domestic animals and the competition for forage between livestock and
game may also make some farmers dubious as to the value of wildlife.

Problems In Use

The public use of private lands for hunting purposes creates some of
the most perplexing problems associated with game and wild-fur pro-
duction and use.

42 CIRCULAR 6 3 6, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

HUNTER PROBLEM

Columns 21 and 22 in table o indicate the wide variation of hunting
pressures exerted in various parts of the United States. As the seasons
and bag limits of all States are not the same, the number of licenses
sold per unit of land area is not an accurate indication of the hunting
pressure nor does this method of measurement recognize the variability
in game productivity of the land. Nevertheless, it is the best statistical
indicator now available.

According to these estimates in New Jersey. 1 license is issued for
every M acres potentially available for hunting purposes. On the
other hand, in Nevada one license is issued for every 11,724 acres.
These figures do not take into consideration lands posted by private
owners that are not available for public hunting. In general, the
greater the hunting pressure the stronger the inclination of private
landowners to post against public hunting so the situation is much
more acute than is indicated by this table.

Hunting pressure is greatest near centers of population and the
posting of private farm lands is most prevalent near large cities.
This restriction is not so evident in the more remote rural districts.

The matter of private posting of lands is of great importance to
the State game dej^artments, since they want their license purchas-
ers to have opportunities to hunt. Practically all lands capable of
producing game and being used by the public for hunting purposes
are privately owned or controlled. Under present conditions nearly
all rural areas that are not posted against trespass are hunted over.
The suggestion that State game departments buy public shooting
lands is not a logical solution of the problem, for this would require
that these departments own most of the rural lands of the State if
the}^ were to provide shooting conditions comparable with those now
existing.

At least two general classes of damage to farmers' property are
associated with public hunting on private land — one attributable to
the hunters, the other to the game. The damage inflicted directly
or indirectly by the hunters involves the injury or destruction of
livestock, poultry, crops, or other property. The farmer is justifiably
indignant when parties unknown to him and without his permission
persist in entering upon his property without consideration of his
inalienable rights to j^eaceful possession. Although it is acknowl-
edged by all concerned that only a small proportion of the persons
engaged in hunting are responsible for these misdemeanors, these
acts of vandalism occur with sufficient frequency to keep alive a
certain antagonism toward public hunting. The destruction of prop-
erty by hunters is important to the farmer who suffers the loss. So
far as is known, the landowner has no recourse except to bring court
action against the individual hunter, and as he seldom has knowl-
edge of the guilty pei'son he seldom is in a position to prosecute the
case successfully.

Damage caused by game to crops also affects the farmer's attitude
toAvard public hunting. Only a very few of the State game depart-
ments provide for payment for damage by game. This naturally is
reflected in the farmei's attitude towards production of game to be
used by the public. Farmers in general apparently want to encour-
age and maintain a reasonable supply of game on their farms. Many

GAME AND WILD-FUR PRODUCTION AXD UTILIZATION 43

of them like to hunt and to share the game with their friends. But
when wildlife becomes abundant enough to do appreciable damage,
the farmer wants compensation or the right to control the game on
his land. When hunters or trappers become a nuisance, he wants
help in controlling them. Farmers" complaints about game damage
are often found to be aimed at the hunter-and-trapper nuisance and
not the actual damage inflicted by the game.

Many of the problems associated with public hunting on private
land originate in our present-day concept of the legal status and
ownership of game and wild fur. The law of ownership and regu-
lation of wild game, as it existed in the Roman and early common
law of England is well stated in the following excerpts from the
opinion of Justice White in the case of Geei- vs. Connecticut (161,
U. S. 519, 522-528) ; ''From the earliest traditions the right to reduce
animals ferae naturae to possession has been subject to the control
of the law giving power. * * * ^q restriction, it would hence
seem, was placed by the Roman law upon the power of the individual
to reduce game of which he was the owner in common with other
citizens, to possession, although the Institutes of Justinian sometimes
recognized the right of an owner of land to forbid another from
killing game on his property, as indeed this right was impliedly
admitted by the Digest in the passage just cited."'

The colonists who settled in America carried with them knowledge
of the common law of England. After the American Revolution
the question arose as to whether the newly independent colonies had
a common law. It was decided that the common law of England
plus English statutes before the Revolution, so far as applicable to
our conditions, constituted the common law. Thus the State ac-
quired the title of the King, and so it has been held uniformly in
this country that the wild game is owned by the State in its sovereign
capacity in trust for the people.

In the days of expansion, exploration, and settlement, the wildlife
of the Xation was an important source of sustenance to the colonists,
explorers, and early settlers. So it was decided that the governing
power should provide in all ways proper for the utilization of this
natural resource by the people. At that time much of the land was
in public ownership and it was largely upon these lands that wildlife
was produced and hunted.

As the ownership of game by the State in its sovereign capacity
in trust for the benefit of the people rests upon the common law
and not upon the statutes, the decisions reached in the United States
Supreme Court, the Federal courts, and the appellate courts of the
48 States, in themselves fix the legal status of wildlife. Mau}^ of
these decisions, howevei-. were reached and promulgated under cir-
cumstances that no longer exist. For example, it is estimated that
approximately 75 peicent of the land in the United States is pri-
vately owned and that at least an equal proportion of game is
produced on lands in private ownership.

Laws and regulations promulgated to restrict kill are designed to
perpetuate the species or distribute adequately opportunities for the
citizens to acquire their proportionate share of the game. Although
the States make provision whereby the ])rivate landowner may exei--
cise his rigid to control trespass, the laws in that respect are frequently

44 CIRCULAR 6 3 6, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

isolated from the <>ame hnvs of the o()vernin<2; power. Thus, although
laws relating to game are often formulated, and are administered by
the respective game departments, laws for the control of trespass are
usually among the general statutes. This means that officers em-
ployed to enforce game regulations do not have authority to prosecute
trespass violations, and they seldom have the inclination. It there-
fore becomes necessary for the landowner to swear out a warrant, and
appear in a court if he wishes to obtain legal protection against
trespass.

The courts have repeatedly held that the owner has the right to
designate who may or who may not enter upon his property and to
this extent only does he control the game and hunting privileges.

In some States it has been held that if the landowner prohibits the
pursuit by the public of wild birds or animals on his property, he
likewise forfeits his right to take publicly owned wild birds or animals.
Although a person has no inherent right to hunt on the premises of
another, a right to so hunt may be acquired by a grant from the owner,
or the owner may sell or lease his premises and reserve to himself the
hunting and fowling rights thereon. In the case of Bingham vs.
Salene (15 Oreg. 208), the court decided that "an owner of lands may
convey specific hunting rights thereon to hunt so as to bar himself from
hunting on his own premises."

The difficulties involved in the legal administration of game are
complicated by the fact that public attitude frequently determines the
degree of enforcement of laws. It has been said that under certain
local administrations, a sporting license to all intents and jiurposes
constitutes a search warrant since the game officials or other State
law-enforcing officers take no active part in prosecuting trespassers.
In recent years, there is greater public recognition of the fact that
the farmer has the right to say who may enter upon his property, and
where and when. This changing attitude is making possible the pas-
sage of laws which more adequately protect the farmer and his pro])-
erty, and enable him to receive consideration, if not remuneration,
in connection with hunting privileges.

In the past, most hunting, trapping, and wildlife-conservation laws,
regulations, policies, and attitudes have failed to give sufficient con-
sideration to the landowner or to the protection of his rights, and have
usually been concerned with local conditions only. Each State has
developed a different set of laws, regulations, and policies relative to
wildlife production, conservation, and utilization, few of which give
just credit to the farmer for his part in producing game and fur
animals or for allowing the public to use his land while using wild-
life. The three outstanding shortcomings of these laws and regula-
tions are: (1) The inadequate provision made for enforcing trespass
laws; (2) the failure to explicitly grant the farmer permission to
control wildlife and hunting on his land, subject to reasonable State
and Federal control; and (3) the failure either to place conservation
personnel on a stable and efficient basis, or to remove wildlife con-
servation and utilization from the influence of pressure groups. Dur-
ing recent years there has been a tendency toward the recognition and
remedying of these shortcomings.

GAME AND WILD-FUR PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION 45

FARM-GAME MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS

The theory has been advanced that the ado))tion of some sort of
management plan will somewhat retard the progressive movement
toward closing private farm land to public use for hunting and trap-
ping, and that such a program will assist in the solution of many
wildlife-production problems.

The term "game management" has been variously interpreted, but
it has usually been thought of as assuring the welfare of the game
and wild-fur animals. For the purpose of this discussion, lands on
which a conscious effort has been made to increase game and wild
fur and direct its utilization will be considered as managed lands.

Purposes

Management for increased production has developed through, vari-
ous stages ; now it may involve restriction of hunting, control of pred-
ators, maintenance of refuge areas, restocking, and environmental
manipulation. The degree to which each of these practices is neces-
sary is determined by local conditions and the objective of the
undertaking.

When farm-game programs have been undertaken by the State
game departments or by organized sportsmen, the purpose has been
to increase hunting opportunities by providing for a more abundant
supply of game and for public access to private lands. When engaged
in by the farmers, the purpose has generally been to protect their
holdings from trespass and to restrict the public use of their lands.
Only in isolated instances is the money consideration of paramount
importance in farmer-initiated programs.

Types

Although various elements appear to be common to all types of
managed areas, probably no two units are identical in their concept
and operation. For the purpose of classification, however, they may
be divided on the basis of land control under the following cate-
gories: Privately owned and operated land, club-owned and club-
operated holdings, club-leased lands, farmer cooperatives, farmer-
sportsmen cooperatives, State-managed lands. State-leased lands, and
State and Federally owned lands. Not all of these types have an
important or direct bearing on the farm-game problem.

PRIVATELY OW^NED AND OPERATED HOLDINGS

Privately owned and operated hunting areas on agricultural lands
vary from modest to elaborate enterprises and may be maintained
primarily for the pleasure of the owner and his friends or for money
returns. Such units seldom, if ever, provide any facilities for public
use, but they do relieve pressure on open lands to the extent that hunt-
ers possessing these exclusive privileges are not in competition for the
areas more accessible to the public. Private holdings, even though of
considerable acreage, seldom furnish facilities for more than a very
few individuals and are rarely put to maxinunn use. Where man-
aged more or less intensively, such tracts are said to bring about bet-
ter hunting opportunities on the surrounding areas by acting as reser-

46 CIRCULAR 63 6, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

voirs from wliich surplus game and wild fur replenish overhunted
covers in the immediate vicinity, and when only li<;htly hunted they
act to some extent as refuges for game and wild fur. Such holdings
are most frequently confined to lands of low value. When the higher
priced, more intensively used agricultural lands have been closed to
public hunting the principal object has been to restrict trespass and
not to provide hunting or to improve conditions for game and wild
fur. The money expended in the management of privately owned
areas varies from inconsiderable sums to many thousands annually,
depending on the interest and financial standing of the operator.

As some owners consider game and wild fur and the opportunities of
hunting them a valuable business and social asset, they exercise their
control to provide recreation for friends and business associates. Pos-
sibilities in this direction have not been fully realized but are being
increasingly appreciated. Opening of some lands now closed to hunt-
ing might be encouraged by calling to the attention of their opei-ators
the fine opportunity to entertain associates. By building up coverts
and increasing the carrying capacity of the land, the owner or even
the renter can make his invitation to hunt a real privilege — a decided
business and social asset.

Game management on privately owned units has not proved a de-
pendable source of revenue. Encouragement of such units on land
already posted against public use might tend to relieve the pressure on
open areas, but unless the land had been previously closed, their addi-
tion to the total not available for public hunting would only intensify
the existing situation that is undesirable from the viewpoint of the
hunting public and the State conservation departments.

CLUB-OWNED AND CLUB-OPERATED HOLDINGS

Small sportsmen's clubs seldom own enough acreage to provide hunt-
ing for their members. The holdings commonly consist of a small area
surrounding a clubhouse, trap-shooting grounds, rifle range, etc.
Members must depend on open land for their hunting.

Holdings owned and operated by the wealthier clubs are, in general,
more elaborate and provide hunting and fishing for members and
guests. The memberships are restricted and fees are usually quite
high. Although conditions are generally more favorable for the pro-
duction of wildlife, the acreage of these organizations to each user is
usually much greater than that of the open areas. On account of the
exclusive and restrictive elements such clubs are often opposed.

In general, land owned by a club and operated as a hunting preserve
is in a wild state, and the only agricultural use ordinarily made of the
land is for w^ell-distributed wildlife food patches. So far as known,
no club operates for the production and harvesting of upland game on
high-grade agricultural land. Waterfowling clubs are occasionally
located on fertile acreages, but as their land requirements are re-
stricted to a narrow shore-line, they do not materially encroach upon
agricultural lands.

CLUB-LEASED LANDS

Clubs that do not have sufficient finances to own and maintain lands
often lease extensive acreages for their exclusive use. They seldom
are able to make any worth-while effort to improve environmental con-

GAME AND WILD-FUR PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION 47

ditioiis, and there is apparently a tendency to be careless in preserving
the breeding stock. If the supply becomes inadequate or somewhat
depleted, there is an inclination to increase the acreage by negotiating
additional leases. As such arrangements lack permanency and an ex-
clusion element is involved, these practices are even less desirable from
the public standj^oint than club ownership. Cooperation between the
landowner and the hunter is necessary ; because one party or the other
becomes dissatisfied, such undertakings seldom endure over a long pe-
riod. Landowners, wanting maximum rentals, force the leases up;
ultimately financial limitations cause either the abandonment of the
project ov the elimination of the members who are least able to pay.

Under lease management, the landowner receives a money return for
the privilege of hunting. It is estimated that a minimum of between
50 and 100 acres is required per gun per season, even on the better game
producing areas; therefore, the rental that a club of this type can
afford to pay is relatively low, usually only a few cents per acre. The
money return to the farmer does not always compensate for the incon-
venience involved, particularly on high-priced or intensively managed
farm lands.

FARMER COOPERATIVES

Farmer cooperatives, in this connection, are usually established
to control trespass. The management and administration of such
units remain with the farmers. Most of the revenue is spent for
buying posters and for patrol. The incentive in the more successful
instances has not been cash profit but better protection of property.
Except where landowners can be prevailed upon to open previously
closed areas, the plan has very definite limitations. Most plans of
this nature include an established charge, specified and collected by
the landowners. A limited number of permits are available and are
required of all persons hunting, fishing, or trapping on the acreages
involved.

Such programs have occasionally been established as sources of
revenue for community enterprises and the successful plans appear
to be always associated with some other local institution such as the
church, school, or grange. Cooperatives of this kind are not likely
to be opposed by other organized groups or by game departments so
long as they do not involve large tracts. Because of the restrictive
elements involved, the widespread adoption of this plan would mean
the withdrawal of hunting and fishing facilities from many indi-
viduals. In heavily populated areas and in intensive agricultural
districts, however, some restrictive measures are imperative, and this
arrangement probably meets with the approval of the farmers as
well or better than most plans.

On one area of this kind the cost to the farmer of controlling
the hunters has been found to be 3.3 cents per acre for the purchase
of posters and the hiring of deputy wardens, with the farmers con-
tributing, free of cost, an equal amount in material and services.
The receipts from the sale of hunting privileges amount to ().o cents
per acre. Hunters have taken one piece of game for every 7 acres,
and the game commission traps for restocking elsewhere 1 pheasant
for every 22 acres. This is a total take of 1 piece of game per 5.3
acres. Of the 6.5 cents per acre- that the a.ssociated farmers receive
from the sale of hunting privileges, they have 3.2 cents per acre left

48 CIRCULAR 636, V. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

to pay the farmer for damage done by the hunters or by the game, for
the materials and time contributed in controlling the hunters, for pro-
viding feed and cover for the game. In many instances this food and
cover can be provided rather inexpensively as illustrated in figures 4,
7, 8 and 12. As the hunter has paid 6.5 cents per acre for his hunting
privilege in this area and takes 1 piece of game per 7 acres, the privilege
costs him more than 45 cents for each piece of game bagged, without
including any other hunting expenses.

RANCH HUNTING PRESERVES

Ranch hunting preserves are confined chiefly to the deer and wild
turkey range of the Southwest where the land, although in private
ow^nership, is in large holdings of 1,000 acres or more and devoted
primarily to grazing. They are established and operated by indi-
vidual ranchers to control trespass and for the purpose of selling
the wildlife crop by selling hunting privileges.

Management of one of these preserves remains with the rancher
but is subject to the restrictions of preserve permits which the rancher
must obtain from the State game commission when his preserve is
established. Permits must be renewed each year. Subject only to
the preserve permit regulations, which require the rancher to main-
tain breeding stock and sets a top limit on the fee that may be
charged for hunting privileges, the rancher manages the wildlife on
his land much as he does his other livestock. In fact, he usually
considers the deer and wild turkey as part of his livestock even
thougli they often leave his premises. The State enforces trespass
and game laws.

These preserves are practicable only where the following condi-
tions prevail: (1) Large private holdings of relatively rough range
land; (2) enforcement by the State of trespass and game laws; and
(3) easy accessibility of the range to sportsmen having more than
average incomes.

From the short-time viewpoint these preserves present a very defi-
nite limit on hunting opportunities as many who would like to hunt
are unable to pay the required fee and as only a limited number are
allowed to hunt on any ranch. Nevertheless, perpetuation of breed-
ing stock is assured. This type of game management seems to be
expanding and all interested parties appear to be relatively well sat-
isfied. These preserves are credited with having been responsible, to
a very large degree, for preventing the extirpation of deer and w^ild
turkey in some States.

In one State, where ranch hunting preserves are well established
and are spreading, the State collects an annual preserve permit fee
of $5 plus 10 percent of receipts from the sale of hunting privileges.
The State enforces trespass and game law^s, but the rancher has to
post his own land and do some patrolling. Since the operating
units are large these costs per acre are very small.

The gross return per acre from the sale of hunting privileges
range from about 10 to 50 cents per acre. These returns, like the
per acre return from range cattle and sheep, depend upon the care
and attention given the wildlife. The ranchers value a deer at about
as much as a steer, and a wild turkey at about as much as a sheep.

Hunting privileges vary from $2 to $4 a day. The average kill

GAME AND WILD-FUR PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION 49

for a large area is 1 deer per 200 acres and 1 wild turkey per 130
acres.

FARMER-SPORTSMAN COOPERATIVES

In efforts to open lands closed to public hunting, sportsmen's
clubs have made cooperative agreements with farmers. These pro-
grams do not involve a rental fee. The clubs agree to furnish
additional protection in the form of posters and patrols. Patrol-
men are customarily farmers within the cooperative, paid by club
funds. The common procedure is to permit only club members to
hunt, but in a very few instances the lands are open to the public.
One of the essentials of such cooperatives is close personal and social
relationship between the hunters and the farmer. Thorough under-
standing and tolerance on the part of both groups is necessary.
To assure success, an extensive educational program is also necessary.
The restrictive element is tempered in this type of controlled area
which is seldom as satisfactory to the farmer as some of the plans
previously discussed.

These programs are generally successful only on the less inten-
sively cultivated and less valuable lands. The plan does not afford
as complete protection as some others and may prove inadequate
where the demand for hunting is exceptionally great. It generally
is loosely administered and requires the continued stimulation of an
influential local leader. The farmer receives nothing that he was not
already entitled to without the necessit}^ of organizations and agree-
ments. The sportsmen gain hunting privileges on additional lands,
often for their exclusive use.

STATE-MANAGED LANDS

State-managed lands, or "controlled shooting areas," are sponsored
by State conservation departments. The plan gives the farmer no
direct remuneration but supplies additional patrol and certain other
advantages. The prestige and law-enforcing prerogative of the de-
partment give this plan a more official status. The object is to reopen,
or forestall the closing of, lands to public hunting use, or to im-
prove the game production on the managed areas.

The shortcomings are comparable to the limitations of the pre-
ceding plan. The procedure invariably provides for the use of the
land by the general public and so does not have the restrictive
elements. Without rigid supervision and continued vigilance by the
game department, the protection afforded the landowner will prob-
ably be ineffective. Nothing is included in the restrictions which
would not be practiced in the name of good sportsmanship any-
way. Although the working of this plan is in part education by force,
the principal advantage is the influence on the sportsman. It places
the game department in the position of protecting the farmers'
rights and of making sportsmen conscious of the fact that hunting on
private property is a privilege and not a right.

The cost of such undertakings has been relatively high. In one
State the game commission spent 50 cents an acre to start such a
program. This did not provide for paying the landowner for im-
proving wildlife conditions or permitting public hunting. State offi-
cials estimated that it would cost 35 cents an acre per year to

50 CIRCULAR 63 6, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

administer the area after it was established. In another State where
the game commission is administering a farm-game program, the
sportsmen reimbnrse the farmers for the time and material used in
improving food and cover conditions for wildlife. It has been found
that the average cost of supplying the annually renewable food and
cover is 12 cents per acre of huntable land. As it is estimated that
not more than one piece of game can be taken from every 4 or 5
acres, the program is rather expensive per head of game bagged.

STATE-LEASED LANDS

State game departments in a number of instances have leased lands
for public hunting. The rental payment is usually 10 or 15 cents
per acre. The objective is to keep lands open to hunting, but the
plan involves the fewest restrictive elements of any yet described.
The amount of the fee paid is controlled by the State which reduces
the possibilities of exploitation. The plan in practice seldom gives
a sufficient cash return to bring under it the better types of farm lands
or to provide for improvements through additional plantings, food
patches, or refuges. The statement has been made that the practice
has a detrimental effect on the general morale of both the sportsman
and the landowner. The owner feels that the better the hunting is
on his land the more his land will be overrun by hunters and. as
he ordinarily receives the same rate of pay for the land regardless
of productivity, it is not to his advantage to increase the quantity of
game or the carrying capacity of the land without additional cash
payments. The hunter is likely to be more careless of his conduct
on these leased lands, as he thinks he is there by right. Unless the
hunters' acts constitute vandalism, there is little likelihood that the
farmer will receive much satisfaction from the State. The plan is
not conducive to better cooperation, nor is it probable that it will
curtail posting or keep open good farm lands where hunting pres-
sure is intense. The possibilities are limited to marginal and sub-
marginal lands. In many instances, it might be more satisfactory
to buy them.

STATE AND FEDERALLY OWNED LANDS

It is not economically feasible for the State or Federal Government
to own or operate, for the primary purpose of game and wild-fur pro-
duction and utilization, large tracts that are adapted to the more
intensive types of agriculture. Such ownership and use must be
restricted to marginal and wild lands. Because of habitat require-
ments, these lands require considerable environmental control to
maintain a resident stock of farm game. Demand for hunting privi-
leges on private lands is usually found in States that still have ade-
quate public domain to provide free hunting opportunities.

Public lands are not always open to hunting, as in many instances
they have been bought to establish refuges and sanctuaries and not
for use as hunting areas. It might be logical sometimes to establish
refuges on private lands and to open the publicly owned areas to hunt-
ing. When public lands are allowed to grow up with dense vegetation,
they become unsuitable as game covers, because wildlife requires a con-
siderable amount of open space as well as cover. Establishment of
such areas requires provision for proper management and care, which.

GAME AND WILD-FUR PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION 51

without question, will be expensive. On private lands this cost is
now borne by the land operator. The problem varies among the
States and within the State, but the use of public lands to relieve hunt-
ing pressure on private lands offers possibilities wherever such area?
are available.

Prevalence and Distribution

Programs for farm-game management are most prevalent in the
better agricultural districts of the United States, the cooperative type
appearing with greater frequency where land holdings are relatively
small and land values comparatively high. Tlie frequency of their
occurrence varies with the hunting pressure. The more successful co-
operative enterprises are commonly located near centers of population.

Privately owned and controlled management areas are usually on
lands of low value where the individual holdings are of considerable
extent. They may be relatively small in area and number but some
types or comJbination of types of management areas occur in all States.
In no case, however, do they occupy any considerable part of a State.

Success

Judgment as to the success or failure of undertakings of this kind
is largely a matter of individual opinion. A certain program may be
considered by an individual or group as being entirely successful be-
cause it accomplishes the principal objective in mind. On the other
hand, this same project may be considered a complete failure by another
person or association with different motives. For example, farmers
who want to control trespass may consider the program successful if
they succeed in controlling it, whereas the sportsman who formerly
hunted this area, unrestricted, and now finds he can no longer do it, or
who had expected a considerable increase in the game which did not
materialize, may consider the program a failure. The degree of success
may perhaps best be appraised by the length of time a project continues
to operate essentially in its original form.

Although a number of projects have succeeded temporarily and
locally, most apparently lacked the elements necessary for perma-
nency or general adoption. The programs that have been more suc-
cessfiil in increasing game have been restrictive in nature, and the
increased production has been accomplished at costs prohibitive to
public enterprises. Where sufficient restriction on hunting is exer-
cised, the difficulties in producing an adequate supply of game and
wild fur are minimized.

The production of game and wild fur is still an incidental enterprise
as associated with agriculture. The rental fees paid to private owners
seldom cover the cost of management and would have to be increased
if the projects are to be put on a self-sustaining basis. Public lands
only occasionally are managed for game production and hunting be-
cause of insufficient funds and technical supervision.

Plans initiated primarily to maintain public hunting on private
property have seldom been successful for any considerable time. Any
such program includes several individual landowners and farmers,
some of whom become dissatisfied because of insufficient retui-ns or
inadequate protection with respect to trespass, so they withdraw from
the association. This is particularly true when the organization is not

52 CIRCULAR 63 6, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

of their own sponsorship. Likewise, it involves the cooperation of a
number of individual hunters who, in turn, may become disappointed
with the quality of sport provided or the restrictions imposed.

The limited quantity of game and wild fur naturally produced on
farms restricts the possibilities of cash returns from their sale. State
laws do not permit the direct sale of wildlife (although they do permit
the sale of fur) and to get returns the farmer is forced to sell hunting
privileges — an intangible asset on which no standard money value has
yet been established. Because the privileges of hunting, trapping, and
fishing have long been free on all lands in the United States, the hunt-
ers, trappers, and anglers are reluctant to pay landowners for them.

Further, there are still enough open lands to influence the sale value
of hunting rights. Unless a landowner sells exclusive rights or can
assure better than ordinary opportunities, there is little demand for
the privileges.

Up to the present time, most money collected from shooting areas
has been expended on additional posting, patrol, and restocking, so
very little if any profit has been realized. The returns have not been
enough to interest farmers in practicing the more intensive kinds of
game management on high-priced lands. The sale of hunting rights on
farm lands has not been generally lucrative, and from the farmer's
point of view, the closing of small farms to public use is often prefer-
able.

Neither farm-game programs nor game-management areas have had
much effect on the organization, management, practices, or income of
farms but both have often reduced the losses caused by wildlife and
hunters and trappers.

Farm-game programs have not been generally successful when
judged from the viewpoint of all parties concerned. Failures are
commonly due to inability to harmonize the conflicting interests of
the farmers and the hunters. Farmers want more protection for
their property and individual rights at little or no additional effort
or cost, and the hunters want more game and more hunting oppor-
tunities at little or no additional cost. The following incentives
seem to be necessary if the land operator is to be induced to provide
game and allow the public to use his land in taking it: (1) Pro-
tection from trespass occasioned by the presence of game and wild-
fur animals; (2) opportunity to receive adequate compensation in
the form of money, social, esthetic, or recreational returns for his
effort in providing game and allowing semipublic hunting; (3) com-
plete control of hunting and hunters on his property subject to fair
and reasonable regulations by law: and (4) custodianship of wild-
life on his property subject to fair and reasonable regulation by law.

FUR AND GAME FARMS

Fur Farms

Fur farms in the United States confine their production largely to
the silver fox and mink. In recent years great strides have been
made in this industry. In 1939, 200,000 minks were produced in
captivity for pelting. The number of silver-fox skins produced in
this country has increased from an estimated 6,000 in 1923 to 325,000

GAME AND WILD-FUR PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION 53

in 1939. It is probable that more than a million silver-fox pelts
enter the world-trade channels annually.

The production of fur in pens requires skill and hi<>:lily technical
training. As the animals are particularly difficult to handle, subject
to disease, and sensitive to diet, fur farming is not considered an
occupation suitable for the inexperienced.

The possibilities in this field are apparently somewhat limited, but
the exploitative characteristic of this enterprise a few years ago has
abated, so the industry is stabilizing and is now having a somewhat
slower but decidedly healthier growth. The products of fur farms
supply a luxury demand and are therefore subject to extreme price
fluctuation. It has been estimated that pen-reared fur supplies 20
percent of the present market. The quantity of wild-trapped fur
is said to be diminishing, but the 80 percent of fur sales that it has
represented is not all potential market for pen-reai-ed fur because
of the nature of the product and of the species involved.

Game Farms

Game farms are maintained principally to produce game birds and
animals for restocking. Mature birds so produced usually sell for
$2 to $2.50 each, but the market is limited. Many game species do
not reproduce satisfactorily in confinement. The principal market
for birds or animals of this kind is with the State game depart-
ments, and as most of these have found it more satisfactory to oper-
ate their own farms, this opportunity for the agriculturist to develop
a supplementary income is limited.

Successful operation of game farms requires specialized skill and
experience which the average farmer does not possess, hence it is not
considered to be an occupation for the untrained.

ENCOURAGING GAME AND WILD-FUR PRODUCTION
AND UTILIZATION ON AGRICULTURAL LANDS

Attitudes of Interested Parties

The study revealed that most farmers and others who are pri-
marily interested in agriculture have given no serious consideration
to increasing wildlife in the past, and that hunters, trappers, and
others most interested in game and fur animals have given little
thought to agriculture or to the farmers and their rights. This lack
of common interest has frequently brought such bitterness between
the farmer and hunter or trapper that the farmer has purposely
destroyed food, cover, and wildlife in order to discourage hunting
and trapping. But it was found that agricultural leaders and con-
servation leaders were ready to cooperate under Federal leadership
in attempting to solve the many problems involved in the inter-
relations of agriculture and wildlife production and utilization.

Those interested in agriculture seemed to view the problem from
the standpoint of protecting the farmers from losses and imposi-
tions rather than of assuring them an income from wildlife, or of
increasing the game supply. On the other hand, those interested
in wildlife seemed to be inclined to cooperate with agriculture for
the purpose of increasing or maintaining tl^e supply of game and

54 CIRCULAR 636, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

hunting opportunities rather than from a desire to establish wildlife
as a source of income for farmers.

A rather common attitude found among hunters and trappers was
that as the State claims ownership of the game and fur animals wher-
ever they may be. and as the game commission has sold them iiunting
and trapping licenses, they have a right to hunt and to take possession
of game and fur animals wherever they are found, without regard to
the wishes or legal rights of the landowners, and that posting or other
restrictions placed upon them by the landowners constitute an in-
fringement of rights purchased from the State, This attitude has
caused the farmers further to curtail hunting and trapping opportu-
nities and to force respect for property and personal rights. Fortu-
nately, an increasing number of hunters and trappers now realize
that, although they have bought a license, access to private property
to hunt or trap is a privilege that must be earned before being en-
joyed and is not a right that can be bought from the game commission.
An increasing number of hunters and trappers make it a point to
request permission to hunt or trap. This improved behavior recipro-
cally causes farmers to have a better attitude toward both wildlife
and the semipublic utilization of it.

Farmers, in general, want to encourage and maintain a reasonable
supply of wildlife on their farms, but when it becomes abundant
enough to do appreciable damage, they want permission to control the
kinds and quantity of wildlife on their land, and, when hunters or
trappers become a nuisance, they also want to be assisted in control-
ling them. In many cases, where farmers have made claims for
damage inflicted by wildlife or have seemingly been trying to reduce
wildlife, it has been found that the real cause of complaint and of
neglect of wildlife was the hunter and trapper nuisance and not the
damage inflicted by wildlife.

The Problem

Publications are available on methods of encouraging the produc-
tion of game on agricultural lands. Fundamentally, however, such
encouragement is a problem of human relationships. Recognizing
that many of the more important game and wild-fur species are de-
pendent upon agricultural lands for a living and that hunters are
largely dependent upon such lands if they are to pursue their sport,
it is evident that the closest possible relationships should be main-
tained between the game and agricultural interests. Oddly enough,
this is not true at present. Other interests associated with agricul-
ture have established and maintained close contacts, yet game and
fur administration on the whole seems to be operated independently
of agricultural institutions.

Recommendations

No permanent or practical solution to the many problems associated
with the production and utilization of game and wild fur on agri-
cultural lands can be anticipated until the agricultural and game
interests are brought into closer harmony. Proper coordination can
materially improve this situation by bringing about a full recognition
of the problems confronting both groups. In the past, educational

GAME AND WILD-FUR PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION 55

programs relative to game and wild fur when sponsored by game and
sporting interests were of such a nature that they were considered by
many farmers — and not a few farm leaders — as propaganda cam-
paigns.

As the sporting element has the greatest interest in the situation
and no other group is willing to assume the task of bringing about
the needed coordination, it appears reasonable that those interested
in preserving the privilege of hunting should assume the responsi-
bility of achieving a better understanding.

Provision might be made for encouraging the teaching of true
principles of conservation in all educational institutions, and for
presenting to the agricultural interests information relative to the
production and utilization of game and wild fur. Simultaneously
game interests should be informed as to the problems of the
agriculturist.

♦Wildlife endeavors of all kinds should be coordinated with agri-
cultural enterprises and should include both production and
utilization.

GENERAL CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

At present, especially on good farm land, there is little or no in-
centive for the farmer to use his resources in the propagation of
game and other wildlife for public or semipublic use, because the
users not only fail to recompense him for his part in providing the
wildlife and the facilities for its enjoyment, but they also often
damage livestock, fences, and other property. In some sections, how-
ever, especially where the land is poorly adapted to farming, and
where trespass is rigidly controlled, there is some opportunity for the
farmer to increase his income by the production of wildlife for semi-
public use.

In general, farmers are penalized for having wildlife, because the
more abundant the game or fur animals, the more harm they do
and the greater the nuisance and damage inflicted by hunters and
trappers. Most game and fur animals on farms are there in spite
of and not because of farming practices, whereas, if farmers received
j)roper recognition, they would in many instances encourage wild-
life as a byproduct of such farm practices as wood-lot management,
erosion control, and soil and water conservation.

Findings of this study indicate that if wildlife is to be perpetuated
and enjoyed by the public, it must be produced by natural reproduc-
tion on private farm land as well as on publicly owned land, and
its utilization must be strictly controlled. Pen propagation and
stocking have proved to be expensive and inadequate as a direct
means of providing game. Publicly owned land can supply neither
enough wildlife nor the facilities for its utilization by the public,
and uncontrolled public utilization of wildlife on private farm land
has proved to be destructive to farm property and to wildlife.

Sporting and esthetic uses of wildlife are luxuries in the same
class as golfing and horseback riding. It is no more unreasonable
to expect the wildlife user, particularly the hunter who actually
consumes wildlife, to pay to the landowner and others the full cost
of providing his recreation than it is to expect the golfer and horse-

56 CIRCULAR 63 6, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

back rider to pay for their recreation. Harvesting fur is a business
proposition with the trapper, and it is just as reasonable for the
farmer or other landowner to receive pay for his part in providing
fur animals and allowing others to use his land in taking them as it
is for the owner of woodland to be paid for permitting others to
cut the timber. There is no denying the fact that the farmer or
other landowner is put to expense in producing game and fur and in
allowing others to use his land in taking it.

If farmers are to provide wildlife and allow the public to utilize
it, adequate incentiA^es must be provided. In most cases, they may
be nothing more than adequate protection of property and individual
rights by control of wildlife and of the hunters and trappers, but
in (others money payments may be required.

If the problems oi providing wildlife and hunting opportunities
for the public are to be solved, wildlife-conservation activities of all
kinds must be removed from the influence of pressure groups. Ad-
ministrative officials, the public, the farmers, and the sportsmen must
be taught to realize that the recreational, social, and esthetic values of
wildlife greatly exceed its economic value: and that wildlife is a
natural resource that all have a right to enjoy. The rights of in-
dividuals must be respected and protected even if this restricts public
utilization of wildlife. The user must become willing to pay an in-
creased amount and the farmer must be willing to accept a large part
of the return for his efforts on behalf of wildlife in the form of such
intangibles as recreational, esthetic, and social enjoyment.

The study indicates the need for a coordinated conservation pro-
gram that will make wildlife production and utilization an inherent
part of land use and soil conservation programs; and for recognizing
the rights of individual landowners as well as the rights of the wild-
life users in all wildlife-conservation programs.

It is recommended: (1) That wildlife conservation in all its phases,
including research, education, and administration, be protected from
the influence of pressure groups, with all conservation personnel placed
on a stable merit basis; (2) that a comprehensive research and educa-
tional program be maintained in each State with participation by the
game commission, the agricultural college, the extension service, the
agricultural experiment station, and the Federal Government; (3)
that each State enact and enforce sound wildlife-conservation legis-
lation, including laws and regulations adequately to control wildlife
users, and to protect farmers and others against excessive wildlife
damage and against trespass; (4) that the State game commissions
and the public recognize that farmers and other landowners are the
producers and custodians of wildlife on their land, and that they are
entitled to protection and compensation in some form for efforts on
behalf of wildlife: and (5) that cooperative consideration of wildlife-
conservation problems be continued jointly by the Bureau of Agri-
cultural Economics. United States Department of Agriculture, and
tlie Fish and Wildlife Service, United States Department of the
Interior.

SUMMAEY

The aborigines of this country used game and fur animals only
for essentials. Today the emphasis is placed upon recreational and

GAME AND WILD-FUR PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION 57

esthetic uses. This has an important bearing on man's demands
on wildlife. When wildlife was used only to provide essentials, the
individual's requirements were limited, but when used for recreational
and esthetic purposes, the individual's demand is practically un-
limited. This change in use has created a new kind of demand, which
tends to increase with the increase in income and leisure time of the
people rather than with the population. Concurrently, the supply of
wildlife has decreased. Originally, all wildlife was produced and
harvested on public land. Today, more than 7o percent of our game
and wild fur is produced and harvested on agricultural land. More
than 80 percent of this land is privately owned. This change in owner-
ship and use of land has placed upon the private landowner not only
the expense of producing wildlife but also any loss resulting from
damage caused by wildlife and wildlife users.

In an effort to overcome the difficulties associated with these changes
numerous plans and schemes have been sponsored during recent years.
Judgment relative to the success or failure of an undertaking of this
kind is largely a matter of individual opinion. A specific program
may be considered successful, if it accomplishes the principal objective
the individual or group has in mind. This same project may be con-
sidered a complete failure by others having different objectives. The
unsatisfactory results so commonly experienced in undertakings of
this nature are, in a large part, caused by an inability of those con-
cerned to harmonize the conflicting interests of the farmer and the
hunter. The farmer wants more protection for his property and
individual rights at little or no additional cost. The hunter wants
more game and more hunting opportunities at little or no additional
cost. The following incentives seem to be imperative if the land
operator is to be induced to provide game and allow the public to use
his land in taking game and fur : Protection from trespass occasioned
by the presence of wildlife; opportunities to receive adequate compen-
sation in the form of money, social, esthetic, or recreational returns
for his efforts in providing game and allowing semipublic hunting;
complete control of hunting and hunters on his property subject to fair
and reasonable regulations by law, and custodianship of wildlife on
his property subject to fair and reasonable regulations by law.

Only in exceptional instances and under somewhat uncommon cir-
cumstances are landowners able to obtain a revenue from game
commensurate with the agricultural use of the land. Where the
production and harvesting of wildlife can be harmonized with agri-
cultural use, it can be made to produce a supplementary in-
come. More frequently, it provides only recreational and esthetic
opportunities.

In general, farmers have been penalized for having wildlife on
their land. The more abundant the game or fur animals the more
damage they inflict and the greater the nuisance and damage caused
by the hunters and trappers. As a result, most game and fur animals
found on farms today are there in spite of agricultural practices or
at best, accidentally. It is believed that if the farmer received proper
recognition he would, in many instances, produce game and wild fur
as a byproduct incidental to such farm practices as wood-lot man-
agement, erosion control, and soil and water conservation.

58 CIRCULAR 636, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

It appears that if game and fur animals are to be perpetuated and
enjoyed by the public, they must be produced primarily through
natural reproduction on private farm land and their use strictly
controlled. Pen propagation and stocking have proved expensive
and inadequate as a direct means of providing game and wild fur.
The principal use of pen-propagated animals is to restock depleted
covers. Publicly owned land cannot supply enough wildlife or the
facilities for its use by the public. Uncontrolled use of game and
fur on farm land has proved to be destructive to private property
and to wildlife. Today the use of wildlife may be considered as much
a luxury as golf and horseback riding. It is not unreasonable to
expect the participant to pay those who provide the facilities in either
instance. Trapping is repeatedly pointed out as a business proposi-
tion to the trapper and when trapping is done on other than the in-
dividual's own land, the cooperating landowner is entitled to re-
muneration comparable with that received from the sale of sawlogs.

It is becoming more evident that if the problems of providing game
and fur animals with opportunities for public use are to be solved,
wildlife conservation activities of all kinds must be removed from
the influence of pressure groups. The wildlife user must expect to
pay an increasing amount for his participation and the producer must
be willing to accept a large part of his remuneration fir his efforts
on behalf of wildlife in the form of such intangibles as recreational,
esthetic, and social enjoyment.

o

■^m