GAME AND WILD-FUR PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION 17 



taken diirino; the year, but the percentage of returns in these States is 

 disappointingly low. A greater number of the State game depart- 

 ments require reports from buyers of raw fur; so the information on 

 furs is more complete although still inadequate. No technique has 

 been devised that will provide an adequate inventory of the living 

 game and fur animals of a State, and most States could not aiford to 

 tabulate and analyze the figures regarding the kill. The only avail- 

 able figures regarding the inventorv or the take of game and wild 

 fur for the country as a whole are rather crude estimates. 



For agricultural crops and livestock, on the other hand, there are 

 reliable estimates of production, marketing, and home and farm use. 

 The need for providing facilities in State and Federal Government for 

 collecting, analyzing, and supplying reliable and comparable wildlife 

 statistics is apparent. 



Then there is a decided difference between the status of ownership of 

 wildlife and of farm crops. The ownership of game by the State in its 

 sovereign capacity, in trust for the benefit of the people, rests upon 

 common law and not upon statutes. The courts of the 48 States have 

 established the ownership of all wildlife in the people as a whole — 

 that is, in the State — which can dispose of it only according to spe- 

 cific laws. These laws limit the disposition of wildlife to only a few 

 species of birds and mammals and then only by selling or granting 

 individuals the right to take a specified number of the specified species 

 for specific uses. The ownership of crops, however, has always rested 

 with the individual who produces them, and their disposition usually 

 rests solely upon the decision of the individual. It is his prerogative to 

 dispose of them in the quantity and in the way he chooses, without too 

 much regard for his neighbor. This is still fundamentally so, although 

 conservative decisions of recent years indicate a vast public interest in 

 soil conservation and orderly distribution of agricultural products. 



Who produces game and wild fur? Is it the State or the private 

 landowner? The answer should be. — Both in cooperation. But in the 

 past this fact has not been adequately acknowledged. There is no 

 question as to who produces the farm crops. 



With these difficulties to overcome, is it any wonder that current 

 discussions and reports as to the value of wildlife are confusing to 

 say the least, and sometimes give money values that are considered 

 excessiA'e ? This is particularl}^ true when comparing the value of the 

 game and wild-fur crop with that of certain farm crops. In these 

 discussions and reports the value of wildlife is frequently calculated 

 as the estimated money turn-over occasioned directly and indirectly by 

 wildlife, plus the estimated value of the meat and fur taken by the 

 hunter and trapper, plus the theoretical value of the outdoor recrea- 

 tion; whereas the farm-crop value is the statistically estimated market 

 value of those parts of the farm crop that are sold or used on the 

 farm. 



Wildlife is of inestimable value to the Nation for it provides es- 

 thetic, .social, and recreational outlets for the people and it is the 

 foundation of some industries and stimulates activities in many 

 others. But it is evident that the money value frequently attributed 

 to the annual wildlife crops is probably exaggerated, 



32.S408°— 42 3 



