212 REPOET OF ONTARIO GAME No. 52 



of business and can readily slip unobserved across the provincial borders, 

 should they so desire, with an accumulation of illegally taken pelts. If, 

 therefore, a license fee were placed on fur buyers sufficiently high to 

 deter the majority of these persons from purchasing a license, it would 

 apparently not only be in the hesi interests of the public, but of the 

 legitimate fur trade also. There can be no question that if the trapper is 

 licensed, so also should be the buyer of raw or undressed furs, for the 

 latter, in the main dealing with furs on a much larger scale than can 

 ever the individual trapper, will make correspondingly greater profits. 

 In the case of the buyer, also, it is to be remembered that dealing in raw 

 and undressed furs he takes his profit for no other service than that of 

 passing them on to those who will improve them, ia,nd that the profits 

 thus accruing to him are at the expense of a natural resource which is 

 the property of the public. It would seem, therefore, that not only 

 should the buyer of raw or undressed furs be licensed, but that the 

 license fee charged him should be sufficiently high to prevent the great 

 majority of the lower class pedlars from purchasing such a license. It 

 could not, of course, be expected that non-possession of such a license 

 would either altogether or at once put a stop to the practices of these 

 gentry in dealing with furs, but at least the imposition of such a license 

 sihould materially facilitate the detection of offences. 



In the case of fur-bearing animals, as in the case of game and fish, 

 it is a matter of no little importance to have comparatively accurate 

 statistics of the annual yield, for by. this means alone can either an 

 increase or decrease be definitely ascertained, and the proper measures 

 taken accordingly to impose or remove restrictions. If trappers and 

 buyers were licensed as suggested there would be no great difficulties 

 in the way of obtaining such statistics, for the licensee in either case 

 could reasonably be required to furnish figures on a form provided him 

 for that purpose Avith his license. Moreover, the furnishing of returns 

 of this nature would go a long way towards checking illegalities. If 

 the trapper was required to send in a return of the numbers of the vari- 

 our species of animals caught and of the persons to whom the pelts were 

 sold together with the license numbers of such persons and the dates of 

 the sales, and the buyer to make out a return in duplicate, one to be sent 

 in to the Department and one to be retained by himself, showing all 

 purchases of raw or undressed furs and the persons from whom such 

 pelts were obtained, together with the license numbers of such persons 

 and the dates of the purchases, it would plainly be a simple matter to 

 exercise close supervision on the buyers and exceedingly difficult for 

 them to have furs in possession unaccounted for, while, where any ille- 

 galities were suspected, it w^ould materially facilitate their investigation. 

 In addition to this, as it is possible for an expert to determine more or 

 less accurately the season in which a skin has been taken, not only 

 would it be inexpedient for a dealer to have a pelt taken out of the 

 proper season in his possession, but it would immediately be possible to 



