GAME AND WILD-FUR PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION 31 



u few iioiia<iricultural States, estimates range as low as 80 to 40 per- 

 cent. The estimate of 80 percent is supported by the statements of 

 man}^ game departments that 90 percent or more of the hunting 

 licenses sold were used almost exclusively for hunting farm-game 

 species and that practically all nonlicensed hunters hunt farm-game 

 species exclusively. 



The unit weight of most forest and range game is, of course, much 

 greater than that of farm game. However, a considerable number 

 of units of forest and range game are taken on agricultural land, and 

 many farm species are taken on nonagricultural land. Thus, even on 

 a weight basis, the relationships noted would not be materially 

 changed. 



Estimates of the number of fur pelts taken in the various States 

 were arrived at by using available trappers' reports, in conjunction 

 with State game department records of furs handled by dealers, and, 

 in a few instances, game department estimates of fur animals taken 

 by trappers. This ap|)eared to be the most practical way of meeting 

 the situation. 



Classifying the catch on the basis of the effective range inhabited 

 by the species as shown in table 2, it was found that approximately 

 27 percent was farm fur animals (not fur farm animals), less than 1 

 percent forest and range fui' animals, 71 percent land and water 

 species, and a^jproximately 1 percent wilderness animals. It is esti- 

 mated that half of the forest and range fur animals and a third or 

 more of the land and water fur bearers were associated with agri- 

 cultural land. Thus, it seems reasonable to believe that 50 to 55 

 percent of the fur animals taken during recent years were dependent 

 in some degree upon agricultural land for their most productive 

 habitat. 



Information indicates that approximately 40 percent of the fur ani- 

 mals harvested were taken on agricultural, and about 60 percent on 

 nonagricultural, land. Furs produced on agricultural lands seem to 

 be superior to those from other types of lands. However, in each 

 class of pelts the lower grades are represented by the greatest num- 

 bers. This is particularly true in the case of land and water fur 

 animals, where muskrat pelts probably make up 75 percent of the 

 total number of skins. The same situation exists, however, for all 

 classes of pelts, with the exception of wilderness fur animals. It is 

 probable that careful analysis would not materially change these con- 

 clusions as to the importance of agricultural land in the production 

 of wild furs. 



This would indicate that agricultural land is much less important 

 in the production and harvest of fur animals than of game, i)robably 

 because the marsh-dwelling muskrats. most of which are taken by 

 professional trappers, make up a very huge part of the annual take of 

 fur animals. 



HUNTING AND TRAPPING OPPORTUNITIES PROVIDED BY AGRICULTURAL LANDS 



To appraise the imj)oi'tance of agricultural lands in providing 

 hunting and tra})i)ing o{)p()rtunities, table 5 was prepared. It was 

 necessary to subti-act from the total land area of the United States 

 certain lands that cannot be used for hunting or trapping. The only 

 colunm for which authoiitative statistics are not available is coluniu 



