14 circular g3 6, u. s. department of agriculture 



Value of Wildlife to the State 



Indirect values of wildlife to the State or other civil divisions are 

 those resulting from the esthetic, recreational, and social facilities 

 provided for the people and the business brought to local industries 

 that pay taxes and employ people. Wildlife also attracts certain 

 industries and businesses, and occasionally serves to increase the resi- 

 dent population of an area. By increasing the taxable property and 

 business, wildlife often contributes an indirect but tangible income 

 to the community, municipality, county, or larger governmental unit. 

 The direct value of wild birds and mammals to the State is largely 

 found in the receipts from the sale of hunting, trapping, and fishing 

 licenses, and allied items. In areas where the wildlife industry and 

 allied businesses are concentrated, the indirect receipts can, and some- 

 times do, form a substantial share of the tax revenue. 



Wildlife also provides an indirect, intangible income to the State 

 by attracting visitors and by enticing many of its own residents to 

 spend their leisure in healthful outdoor recreation. 



In all probability the value of indirect receipts from wildlife 

 greatly exceed the value of direct receipts, and intangible values 

 exceed both the direct and indirect. It would appear that the value 

 of wildlife to the State today lies in the important and powerful 

 stimuli for a large and active group of industries and in the incen- 

 tives and means for esthetic, recreational, and social outdoor activities 

 for the people. Wildlife value to the individual depends upon the use 

 he makes of it. but, in all instances, it is primarily intangible in the 

 form of esthetic and recreational enjoyment. 



Value of Game and Wild Fur to the Farmer 



destruction of insects 



Perplexing problems are involved in discussing the values of ^ame 

 and wild fur to the farmers. For example, it is frequently pointed 

 out that wild birds destroy many injurious insects. This is un- 

 doubtedly true, but the species most generally mentioned are not 

 game-bird species, although quail and pheasants do at times consume 

 large quantities of insects. 



Not all insects are injurious. Probably more species are either 

 beneficial or neutral than are harmful. All species are eaten by some 

 birds and mammals. Just how much net money value can be placed 

 on the destruction of insect pests is open to question. Certain lia- 

 bilities must be charged against the other activities of these game 

 birds. If they destroy more crops than they save, or if they eat as 

 many beneficial as injurious insects, there may be no net benefit to 

 the farmers. Results vary according to local circumstances. Ap- 

 parently there are few records of game birds assisting materially in 

 the control of insect outbreaks, and there is no evidence that game 

 birds have made possible any substantial reduction in the use of con- 

 trol measures. It is entirely possible that certain forms of insects 

 themselves occupy a comparable or more important place in the con- 

 trol of undesirable insects than do game birds. Probtibh' no game 

 mammal and only a limited number of fur-bearing animals are recog- 

 nized as being insectivorous in their habits. 



