52 CIRCULAR 63 6, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 



of their own sponsorship. Likewise, it involves the cooperation of a 

 number of individual hunters who, in turn, may become disappointed 

 with the quality of sport provided or the restrictions imposed. 



The limited quantity of game and wild fur naturally produced on 

 farms restricts the possibilities of cash returns from their sale. State 

 laws do not permit the direct sale of wildlife (although they do permit 

 the sale of fur) and to get returns the farmer is forced to sell hunting 

 privileges — an intangible asset on which no standard money value has 

 yet been established. Because the privileges of hunting, trapping, and 

 fishing have long been free on all lands in the United States, the hunt- 

 ers, trappers, and anglers are reluctant to pay landowners for them. 



Further, there are still enough open lands to influence the sale value 

 of hunting rights. Unless a landowner sells exclusive rights or can 

 assure better than ordinary opportunities, there is little demand for 

 the privileges. 



Up to the present time, most money collected from shooting areas 

 has been expended on additional posting, patrol, and restocking, so 

 very little if any profit has been realized. The returns have not been 

 enough to interest farmers in practicing the more intensive kinds of 

 game management on high-priced lands. The sale of hunting rights on 

 farm lands has not been generally lucrative, and from the farmer's 

 point of view, the closing of small farms to public use is often prefer- 

 able. 



Neither farm-game programs nor game-management areas have had 

 much effect on the organization, management, practices, or income of 

 farms but both have often reduced the losses caused by wildlife and 

 hunters and trappers. 



Farm-game programs have not been generally successful when 

 judged from the viewpoint of all parties concerned. Failures are 

 commonly due to inability to harmonize the conflicting interests of 

 the farmers and the hunters. Farmers want more protection for 

 their property and individual rights at little or no additional effort 

 or cost, and the hunters want more game and more hunting oppor- 

 tunities at little or no additional cost. The following incentives 

 seem to be necessary if the land operator is to be induced to provide 

 game and allow the public to use his land in taking it: (1) Pro- 

 tection from trespass occasioned by the presence of game and wild- 

 fur animals; (2) opportunity to receive adequate compensation in 

 the form of money, social, esthetic, or recreational returns for his 

 effort in providing game and allowing semipublic hunting; (3) com- 

 plete control of hunting and hunters on his property subject to fair 

 and reasonable regulations by law: and (4) custodianship of wild- 

 life on his property subject to fair and reasonable regulation by law. 



FUR AND GAME FARMS 



Fur Farms 



Fur farms in the United States confine their production largely to 

 the silver fox and mink. In recent years great strides have been 

 made in this industry. In 1939, 200,000 minks were produced in 

 captivity for pelting. The number of silver-fox skins produced in 

 this country has increased from an estimated 6,000 in 1923 to 325,000 



