Circular No. 636 



January 1942 • Washington, D. C 



UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 



Game and Wild-Fur Production and Utili- 

 zation on Agricultural Land 



By J. PAUL MILLER, Fish and Wildlife Service, United States Department of the In- 

 terior and BURWELL B. POWELL, Bureau of Agricultural Economics, 

 United States Department of Agriculture 



CONTENTS 



Page 



Foreword 1 



Introduction 2 



Past and present status of game and wild fur. . 3 



Abundance 3 



Habitat 7 



Production 9 



Harvesting 10 



Social and economic importance 10 



Value of game and wild fur 11 



Origin and shifts in game and wild-fur 



values 12 



Value of wildlife to the individual user 12 



Value of wildlife to the State 14 



Value of game and wild fur to the farmer. . 14 

 Comparative value of game and wild-fur 



products and of agricultural products.. _ 16 



Game and wild-fur production and use on 



agricultural lands 18 



Importance of agricultural lands 18 



Page 

 Game and wild-fur production and use — Con. 



Problems in production 39 



Problems in use 41 



Farm-game management programs 45 



Purposes 45 



Types 45 



Prevalence and distribution 51 



Success 51 



Fur and game farms 52 



Fur farms 52 



Game farms 53 



Encouraging game and wild-fur production 



and utilization on agricultural lands 53 



Attitudes of interested parties 53 



The problem 54 



Recommendations 54 



General conclusions and recommendations 55 



Summary 56 



M»^^^^^W^^^^^W^^ 



FOREWORD 



The aggregate of wildlife on agricultural lands of the United 

 States is large and its estimated value is very impressive. Hence 

 enthusiasts have suggested that returns from wildlife management 

 may be an important source of revenue to farmers. Locally, Avorth- 

 while revenue may be obtained, but the country is vast, and the values, 

 however large, when spread over the whole, become very thin. 

 Hunters are so numerous that the game harvest of a State distributed 

 among them could supply each with only a fraction of a single 

 specimen of some of the species most sought. If the return to the 

 hunter is small, then that to the farmer cannot be great. Again 

 high-class agricultural land can hardly be devoted to such a distinctly 

 low-income crop as wildlife. Only inferior lands can be used and 

 their productivity of wildlife as of other crops is low. 



These obvious considerations have been ignored and many mislead- 

 ing statements have been made as to the revenue-yielding potentialities 



323408°— 42 1 J 



