1 74 ECONOMIC MAMMALOGY 



by the game laws. 6 The purpose of close seasons on fur-bearers is not 

 only to conserve the fur supply, but also to insure a better average 

 grade of furs, and to prevent unnecessary cruelty in trapping. Furs are 

 in prime condition for only two or three months each year, the period 

 varying slightly with different species and in different localities, but the 

 extreme limits in North America being not earlier than November and 

 not later than February, the best months being December and Janu- 

 ary. The laws should be based upon a more thorough study than yet 

 has been made of the habits of the various species and the character of 

 the furs coming to market from different regions. 7 That legislatures 

 are struggling to improve the fur-animal laws is shown by the fact that 

 changes were made in all except four states between the issuance of 

 the summary for 1924-1925 and that of 1925-1926. 



Laws for the protection of fur-bearing animals are not altogether 

 a modern invention. The earliest of the sort that we have found was 

 enacted in Massachusetts in 1791, prohibiting trapping during June, 

 July, August and September. In 1821 New Hampshire provided a close 

 season for beaver, mink, otter and muskrat from May I to November 

 i of each year. In 1829 New Jersey and in 1830 Ohio provided a close 

 season for muskrats. 8 The great difference of opinion among legisla- 

 tures is shown by the fact that some states protect bears, muskrats, 

 rabbits and some other species for the destruction of which bounties 

 are paid in other states. The muskrat is protected throughout the year 

 in a few states, with an open season of from two to five months in 

 most states and no protection in a few. The skunk is subject to an open 

 season of from one to three months in the great majority of states 

 and is unprotected in the remainder, which applies also to the raccoon, 

 except that the open season reaches five months in some states. 



The laws are also extremely variable in other respects. Among other 

 provisions of various state and provincial laws are: Provisions against 

 poisoning fur-bearers (except such as coyotes, wolves, etc., sometimes 



6 Ashbrook, Earnshaw and Grimes, Laws relating to fur animals for the season 

 1927-28, Farmers' Bull., No. 1552, 1928, one of a series of biennial summaries of 

 fur laws published by the U. S. Dept. of Agric. Dearborn, Maintenance of the fur 

 supply, U. S. Dept. Agric. Circular No. 135, 1920. Ashbrook, Trapping laws and 

 the fur supply, Journ. Mammalogy, vi, 168-173, 1925; Fur farming for profit, pp. 

 289-292, 1928. Laut, The fur trade of America, pp. 151-186, 1921. Innis, The fur 

 trade of Canada, pp. 49-66, 1927; Fur farming in Canada, pp. 135-138, 1913. Anti-steel 

 trap legislation and the sportsman, American Game (Bull. Amer. Game Protec. Assn.), 

 xvn, 96-97, 1928. 



7 Dearborn, U. S. Dept. Agric. Circular No. 135, p. 7, 1920. Lantz, The muskrat, 

 Farmers' Bull., No. 396, 1910. 



8 Lantz, The muskrat as a fur-bearer, with notes on its use as food, Farmers' 

 Bull., No. 869, 1923. 



