GAME .\ND WILD-FUR PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION 



27 



were estimated by experienced biologists and economists who are fa- 

 miliar with agriculture and other land use conditions, and with wild- 

 life and its administration, production, and utilization throughour ihe 

 Nation. 



A study of the percentages in table 3 indicates that the agi'icultural 

 use of the land is relativeh' favorable to the production of cover and 

 food for game and fur animals as compared with most nonagricultural 

 uses. According to these estimates, it is believed that 48 ])ercent of the 

 land in farms and 81 percent of the agricultural land not in faims are 

 providing food and covei- for game and fur animals, and 59 percent 

 of the agricultural land provides 81.6 percent of the wildlife habitat 

 of the country. 



According to this table, when all agricultural land is compared with 

 all nonagricultural land. 59 percent of the formei- and 68 i)ercent of the 

 latter are providing food and covei- for game and wild-fur animals. 

 Some species depend for their existence upon agricultural land, or 

 rather upon the conditions which agricultural pursuits create, and 

 where these species are important game species, agriculture and the 

 land devoted to it will be of even greater importance to wildlife pro- 

 duction than is here indicated. 



Table 3. 



-E.sti>nnted acreage inuridiiiy food and cover for wildlife, by classes 

 of land. 1935 



Class of land 



Agricultural; 



Land in farm';: 



Cropland 



Open pasture.. 



Woodland 



All other land. 



Total 



Land not in farms: 



Forest and woodland grazed. . 



Do 



Nonforest and woodland 

 grazed. 



Do 



Total 



All agricultural land . 



Ownership 



Private, 

 do.. 



.do. 

 .do. 



Providing food and cover 



Total 

 area 



1. 054. 515 



Public I » 132.612 



Private . 

 Public - 



Private. 



< 143. 100 

 * 163. 353 



106. 089 

 128.790 

 122.515 



9.2 

 11.2 

 10.7 



5.6 

 6.8 

 6.4 



"^ These percentages were estimated by liiolofiists and ecoiiomi.'its who are tlioroufilil.v 

 familiar with land use. agriculture, and wildlife habitat in each State and were based upon a 

 stiidy of each class of land. 



-The fijrures in this column show only the acreage providin.i; food and cover: tliey do 

 not consider quality of food and cover which really determine the wildlife carrying 

 capacity of the area. 



'Data from the in:'>5 agricultural census. 



♦ Compiled from Part TIT of the Supplementary Report of the I.,and Planning Cnnimittee. 

 National Resources Board. i)p. .S5-4S. 



° Agricultural land not in farms is really greater than shown because considerable other 

 land is grazed by domestic animals and some other land is used for crops, particularly in 

 urban .-ireas and on Indian reservations. 



