Game Administration 235 



The game income is not believed to differ markedly from game expendi- 

 ture, since legislative diversion of game funds are fortunately no longer prevalent. 

 The last ones heard of during the survey were a diversion of approximately 

 $250,000 of accumulated game funds by the Ohio legislature in 1927, and an 

 annual diversion in Iowa by reason of a statutory limitation on the amount to be 

 spent for game. In 1928 this diversion was about $60,000. 



The game income for the season of 192829 was reported by the States to 

 the U. S. Department of Agriculture as follows: 



The outstanding fact shown by this table is that the present resources of the 

 State game departments permit of the expenditure of one cent per acre per year 

 for game conservation in only three States. 



No one knows as yet what actual game management should cost. Game is a 

 low-yield, low-cost crop. We may safely infer that game management, if it is 

 to meet the recreational needs of our growing population, must be practiced on a 

 large proportion of the total area of each State. We may also safely infer that 

 it cannot be practiced for one cent per acre per year, nor probably for less than 

 five or ten times that amount. It would therefore appear that even after the 

 State game departments are more amply financed (as they should be) there will 

 be little hope of their assuming the entire cost, or even any large part of the 

 cost, of the desired Statewide practice of management. 



Per Capita Expenditures. Before proceeding further with the analysis 

 of the State's function, it is well to gain the additional perspective of what the 

 average citizen invests in game and fish conservation. (Every one knows what 

 the average hunter invests. It is the dollar or two which represents the cost of 

 his hunting and fishing license.) 



Game Commissioner Keith McCanse made an analysis of per capita ex- 

 penditures for game and fish conservation in Missouri in 1927. The total hunt- 

 ing and fishing license income from each county was divided by the number of 

 inhabitants. The resulting per capita expenditure figures are subject to one error: 

 a hunter may live and busy his license in one county but do his hunting in an- 

 other. There is no way to correct this, so that it must be arbitrarily ignored. 

 Proceeding on this basis, the analysis shows: 



(1) The lowest per capita investment was three cents. It occurs in a group 

 of five rich farming counties on the black prairie northeast of Kansas City. This 

 region has the least game of any part of Missouri, presumably by reason of the 

 fact that there is no cover to go with the food. 



(2) The highest per capita investment was 17 cents' and occurs in Cole 

 County, which contains the State capital, and in Phelps County. Both contain 

 cities and are characterized by a thorough interspersion of timbered hills affording 

 cover, and thrifty farms affording food. Practically the same rate of expenditure 

 also obtains in two groups of counties around St. Louis and Springfield, respec- 

 tively. 



(3) In general, southern Missouri expenditures run much higher than north- 

 ern Missouri. Expenditures follow the game rather than the human population. 



