190 PROBLEMS IN WILD LIFE CONSERVATION 



sylvania, Ohio, New Jersey, Missouri and California set 

 aside a definite percentage of the game fund that may be 

 used only for the propagation of game and maintenance of 

 fish hatcheries. 



A number of states 39 have set up several different funds 

 to be devoted to various phases of wild-life conservation. 

 The common division is to place the revenue from fishing 

 licenses in a fishing fund to be used for the improvement 

 of fishing and the income from hunting licenses in a hunting 

 fund to be used to improve hunting. Five of the states, at 

 least, have an additional fund containing the revenue from 

 oyster and commercial fishing which is used to promote 

 those industries. 



The principle that the sportsmen who pay the license fees 

 should have the income spent to aid them, advanced to jus- 

 tify the fund system, can be used with equal force to justify 

 a multiple fund system. Many sportsmen who hunt do not 

 fish, and vice versa. Under the multiple fund system the 

 fisherman has the satisfaction of knowing that the fees he 

 has paid will be used solely for the improvement of fishing 

 and not upon game preserves in which he has little interest. 

 The disadvantage of this system lies in the fact that the 

 broad aim of wild-life conservation as a whole may be lost 

 sight of and a policy of piecemeal replacement take its place. 



The License System: The states early required hunters 

 and fishermen to obtain licenses for which a fee was charged, 

 chiefly because the license system offered a source of reve- 

 nue. In more recent times it has been discovered that the 

 license system also is useful as a method of exercising con- 

 trol over the taking of wild animals in those states where 

 license holders are required to make a report at the end of 

 each year stating the number of animals killed. 



39 Texas, Pennsylvania, Oregon, North Carolina, Minnesota, Maine, 

 Georgia, and Alabama. 



