16 CIRCULAR 63 6, V. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 



by farmers vary greatly. Recent investigations indicate that perhaps 

 the hirgest proportion of wild fur is trapped by professional trappers 

 from the cities. In some instances farmers or farm l^oys get money 

 from furs trapped in their local communities. They seldom confine 

 their activities to their own property, but the money they get, on an 

 average, seldom exceeds $100 annually. For families on submarginal 

 land this cash item may be of critical importance. More successful 

 farmers do not have time to trap over wide districts, and such trapping 

 is necessary to earn any considerable income from wild-fur animals 

 frequenting agricultural land; however, the per-acre revenue from 

 some muskrat marshes is said to equal that of nearby agricultural land. 



The sale of w^ild fur probably returns several million dollars annu- 

 ally to the rural population of this country. Intensive studies now 

 being conducted under the Pittman-Robertson Act in some of the best 

 fur-producing States indicate that considerably less than half the 

 receipts from raw furs go to farmers and farm boys, so previous esti- 

 mates were apparently too high. 



In 1929, when prices were much higher than in recent years and the 

 take of wild fur was greater, the annual market value of this product 

 in the United States w^as estimated at 65 million dollars. Some 

 authorities maintain that this estimate is high even for that period. 

 There has been a great decline in the take of wild furs and in the price 

 obtained, and studies indicate that the annual gross receipts from wild 

 fur may not have exceeded 20 to 25 million dollars in recent years. 



The sale of trapping privileges on marshlands may be of consider- 

 able consequence, but the money received for the privilege of trapping 

 terrestrial forms of wild fur on better types of farm land is seldom 

 an appreciable item. Usually the privilege is freely given, for the 

 farmer is glad to get rid of foxes, minks, skunks, and some other fur 

 animals. 



It has been repeatedly pointed out, however, that the several million 

 dollars received by rural people for raw furs is received by farm fam- 

 ilies who are badly in need of cash to supplement their income from 

 farming. Therefore, farmer receipts from wild fur are of much more 

 relative importance than the market value would indicate. 



Comparative Value of Game and Wild-Fur Products and 

 OF Agricultural Products 



DIFFICULTIES ENCOUNTERED 



An estimated money value of the annual game and wild-fur crop is 

 often compared with the sales value of some agricultural crop. The 

 only apparent reason for this is that both are products of the soil and 

 so are competitors, more or less, for the use of the land and for the 

 farmers' time and resources. Because such comparisons almost totally 

 lack a basis and yet are frequently carried to erroneous conclusions, 

 any discussions of the subject are fraught with possibilities of mis- 

 takes, misunderstandings, and misinterpretations. However, in a 

 report of this nature the subject cannot be ignored. 



There is almost no statistical information pertaining to game and 

 w^ild-fur production and utilization. A few State game departments 

 require hunters and trappers to report the amount of game and fur 



