42 CIRCULAR 6 3 6, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 



HUNTER PROBLEM 



Columns 21 and 22 in table o indicate the wide variation of hunting 

 pressures exerted in various parts of the United States. As the seasons 

 and bag limits of all States are not the same, the number of licenses 

 sold per unit of land area is not an accurate indication of the hunting 

 pressure nor does this method of measurement recognize the variability 

 in game productivity of the land. Nevertheless, it is the best statistical 

 indicator now available. 



According to these estimates in New Jersey. 1 license is issued for 

 every M acres potentially available for hunting purposes. On the 

 other hand, in Nevada one license is issued for every 11,724 acres. 

 These figures do not take into consideration lands posted by private 

 owners that are not available for public hunting. In general, the 

 greater the hunting pressure the stronger the inclination of private 

 landowners to post against public hunting so the situation is much 

 more acute than is indicated by this table. 



Hunting pressure is greatest near centers of population and the 

 posting of private farm lands is most prevalent near large cities. 

 This restriction is not so evident in the more remote rural districts. 



The matter of private posting of lands is of great importance to 

 the State game dej^artments, since they want their license purchas- 

 ers to have opportunities to hunt. Practically all lands capable of 

 producing game and being used by the public for hunting purposes 

 are privately owned or controlled. Under present conditions nearly 

 all rural areas that are not posted against trespass are hunted over. 

 The suggestion that State game departments buy public shooting 

 lands is not a logical solution of the problem, for this would require 

 that these departments own most of the rural lands of the State if 

 the}^ were to provide shooting conditions comparable with those now 

 existing. 



At least two general classes of damage to farmers' property are 

 associated with public hunting on private land — one attributable to 

 the hunters, the other to the game. The damage inflicted directly 

 or indirectly by the hunters involves the injury or destruction of 

 livestock, poultry, crops, or other property. The farmer is justifiably 

 indignant when parties unknown to him and without his permission 

 persist in entering upon his property without consideration of his 

 inalienable rights to j^eaceful possession. Although it is acknowl- 

 edged by all concerned that only a small proportion of the persons 

 engaged in hunting are responsible for these misdemeanors, these 

 acts of vandalism occur with sufficient frequency to keep alive a 

 certain antagonism toward public hunting. The destruction of prop- 

 erty by hunters is important to the farmer who suffers the loss. So 

 far as is known, the landowner has no recourse except to bring court 

 action against the individual hunter, and as he seldom has knowl- 

 edge of the guilty pei'son he seldom is in a position to prosecute the 

 case successfully. 



Damage caused by game to crops also affects the farmer's attitude 

 toAvard public hunting. Only a very few of the State game depart- 

 ments provide for payment for damage by game. This naturally is 

 reflected in the farmei's attitude towards production of game to be 

 used by the public. Farmers in general apparently want to encour- 

 age and maintain a reasonable supply of game on their farms. Many 



