Fur resources : the stepchild of conservation

Historic, archived document

Do not assume content reflects current
scientific knowledge, policies, or practices.

ena ’ a Peel + pr eranane
a errs my :
. Paved,

al ite
Te Al tidied ile bon alameda Atl

a
by i ~ 7
j 4 ry
= + \
a ae Mt
au tO pig Pree en
: .
7
Te Cees ‘
>
S
: -~
re : v ;
* f * .
; . * . re ’
ch 4 : A Say
, 7 .
5
A a *
ae ‘ fe ;
a He
.
jie
J .
‘ das
rie . 7 ;
i j ~
ay
) 5
; vi
+7 $
5 : “it .
; ‘7 :
” -
; ~
‘
2
i
me :
Ny
4
i

United States Department of Agriculture
“Bureau of Biological Survey

Wildlife Research and Management Leaflet BS-25

Washington, D. C. * December 1935

a a

FUR_RESCURCES--THE STEPCHILD OF CONSERVATION

By Frank G. Ashbrook, principal biologist, In Charge, Fur Resources,
Division of Wildlife Research

; If the public does not believe that ducks are just about the most
important species of wildlife, it is not the duck hunters! fault. ‘That
more attention is being given to ducks than to any other form of wildlife
is a fact that cannot be denied. More power to all those who are interested
in duck conservation. The migratory waterfowl surely need it.

But what about fur animals? Who is looking after their welfare?
This tremendously valuable natural resource is being constantly neglected
and shoved into the background and still remains the stepchild in the
family of conservation, As a matter of fact, it looks now as though we
are headed straight for a general extermination of fur animals--not be-
cause we want it, but because we can't help it under the present system.

It is difficult to conceive that in a civilized country so valua-
ble a resource as fur animals has been so sadly neglected and atrociously
wasted. You can't go on killing millions of fur animals forever without
eventually coming face to face with their extermination. Surely a valua-
ble resource that yields an annual income to trappers of $65,000,000
deserves much more attention than it is now receiving. A large majority
of those who trap fur animals includes farmers and their sons who depend
upon this source of revenue to increase the farm income. The employment
it furnishes and the income it supplies to these rural folks should be
sufficient justification to arouse public sentiment for immediate action
im Oréer to save what is still left of our fur resources.

We like to think of ourselves as ardent conservationists, far-seeing,
and possessing the required initiative--but somehow or other we have come
to believe that we can treat our fur animal heritage as we please. Even
some of those who have served as administrators of wildlife have seemed to
forget that they are custodians not owners of our fur resources. How long
will this continue before we realize that there is something fundamentally
wrong with such an attitude? Fur animals are the property of the people
in the various States, and this natural resource should be managed for the
benefit of all the people instead of ee political groups and selgish
interests to exploit it.

Many fine meadows in-the United-States. had their-origin in the
industry of the beaver, which built dams, cleared away trees, and when its
artificial lakes were finally filled with silt, removed to other localities.
Fur bearers have been greatly reduced in numbers before the advance of
civilization, which drove the animals from their haunts and converted the
areas to agricultural uses.

It is quite generally believed by those who are struggling with our
Federal land policies that too much agricultural land has been developed,
yet they have failed to see that a considerable portion of our public and
private land should be utilized for the production and conservation of
this valuable natural resource.

There are those who visualize a swamp or marsh as a place that must
be drained. Others believe that such areas serve the best purpose as a
dump for defunct automobile bodies. Yet many such places are havens for
muskrats and other fur animals, as well as for migratory waterfowl. Some
of our tidal and inland marsh areas are capable of producing five, some-—
times more, muskrats per acre, not to mention the other wildlife which
inhabits such places. At present market prices, the return on an acre
from muskrat pelts alone would furnish an income of from $7 to $14 each
season. No system of cropping this type of land would produce as much.
Why then is serious consideration not given to fur animals as an annual
crop? Animals as well as human beings derive: their very existence from the
land. They are fed, sheltered, clothed, and warmed out of the soil. The
land then should mean something more than just so many bales of cotton,
so many bushels of corn, or so many pounds of pork. Wildlife, one of our
greatest natural heritages, deserves serious consideration in any general
policy for land management.

Every year millions of: acres are being destroyed for wWalieiaine mses
by forest fire, soil erosion, and by plowing large sections of land that
never should be plowed. Recently on a trip to the Pacific coast I sam an
one of the Southwestern States large areas plowed for the first time, and
bordering these areas were clumps of large pine trees girdled to make room
for more cultivated crops. What a pity to destroy such natural wildlife
areas for the purpose of producing crops, when there are already millions
of acres of waste land that. was once productive.

The same neglect that has caused the extermination of the passenger
pigeon and the decimation of the buffalo herds, and that has brought the
migratory waterfowl population to a Crisis, is bringing fur animals there
just as fast, Over-production of fur seldom, if ever, occurs tnese days.

If demand for certain species grows, naturally the catch is in-
creased; and if some furs are neglected in the trade, the reverse is true.
A strong demand for a particular kind of fur causes continued trapping,
which if pursued long enough will reduce the number below commercial
quantities and may eventually exterminate the animal. Continued increase
in the number of fur animals trapped does not mean that the animals have
increased in numbers. On the contrary it most likely is an indication
that the species in question is being threatened with extermination.

The marten, fisher, and otter, our three most valuable fur animals
from the standpoint of individual pelts, are in just such a precarious
status. The price obtained from these pelts has always remained high
enough to cause close trapping. The animals, although never abundant any-
where, have now entirely disappeared from much of their former ranges Of
these, three, the.otter is perhaps most plentiful because much skill and
patience are required to locate its haunts and capture it.

‘lo develop young, the female marten requires 9 We months and the
fisher 11. months. The whelping seasons of the marten and of the fisher
are late in March and early in April. Consequently, in States where these
animals are permitted to be trapped, pregnant females are sure to be de-
stroyed. Extermination of these species is therefore most seriously
threatened. Unless we do something about it, their extinction is inevitable.

The. Russian Government, in view of the growing scarcity of the
Russian sable, prohibited the taking of this animal in Asiatic Russia from
February 1913 to October 1916. This action naturally increased the demand
at that time for American marten, and as a result the animal was so closely
trapped that the breeding stock was seriously impaired. The breeding and
gestation periods of the American marten and the Russian sable were not
then known; but the Russians, always fur conscious, took this precautionary
measure to prevent further depletion of their breeding stocks.

The most amazing thing is that with a $500,000,000 annual turnover
in the retail fur trade even as late as 1929, no one should have started
long ago to put the fur trade on a factual basis. No one knows’ whether we
produce 12,000,000 muskrats a year and trap 13,000,000, or whether we pro-
duce 11,000,000 and trap 25,000,000. How many of the different species
are oroduced and how many killed annually is obviously the first thing to
determine in looking to the future trapping of fur animals. Already the
annual retail turnover in furs has shrunk to $150,000,000, and the entire
cause’ cannot be attributed to draughts, floods, and the financial depres-—
sion. A considerable portion of it has been caused by an increasing
scarcity of fur animals.

Has any policy been adopted for the conservation of fur resources?
Is there a national plan for the maintenance and preservation of the tre-
mendous economic value in fur resources? The trouble is the public has
been extremely indifferent to fur conservation, forgetting that this natural
resource had a great deal to do with the development of our country. Even
among the State conservation and game commissions there are those who look
upon fur animals as "vermin," simply because some of them feed on species
of game birds that hunters desire to shoot for sport. There seems to be
no policy of "live and let live" where the fur animals are concerned.

The fur trade would do well to face this situation. There is no
other group of people to whom the preservation of our fur resources mean
so much. As Mr. Darling has told the duck hunters: "Better think soberly
in terms of preservation rather than of postmortems."

Now, what can be done? Well, here is a suggestion: If the fur
trace were represented by an organization similar to those maintained by

-¢-

other large and important industries to, look after their interests, its
spokesmen’ could present. the situation and gain the recognition for a
natural resource on which. the. trade's very existence depends. And here's
another hint: It is not-.yet too late for the fur trade to inform the
National Resources Board: that fur animals should be given serious con-
sideration in evolving a national policy for the use of our resources.

Perhaps no other nation and surely no other continent in history
was given so much to begin with in the way of fur resources; and perhaps
no other people has treated this natural heritage with so little concern
for its value .to.future senerations. What of the future? Will the peo=
ple of the United States take more active interest in conserving a resource
that really belongs to them? Will the fur trade urge upon local, State,
and Federal governments.the necessity for developing and fostering-a new
and constructive policy so that our fur resources will be conserved rather
than ruthlessly exploited?. Will the fur trade cooperate in formulating
and in carrying out such a:policy? These are important questions. If
the fur animals are to have a fair break and the fur trade is to be main—
tained, something must be done.and done quickly. ~