GAME AND WILD-FUR PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION 47 



ditions, and there is apparently a tendency to be careless in preserving 

 the breeding stock. If the supply becomes inadequate or somewhat 

 depleted, there is an inclination to increase the acreage by negotiating 

 additional leases. As such arrangements lack permanency and an ex- 

 clusion element is involved, these practices are even less desirable from 

 the public standpoint than club ownership. Cooperation between the 

 landowner and the hunter is necessary ; because one party or the other 

 becomes dissatisfied, such undertakings seldom endure over a long pe- 

 riod. Landowners, wanting maximum rentals, force the leases up; 

 ultimately financial limitations cause either the abandonment of the 

 project or the elimination of the members who are least able to pay. 



Under lease management, the landowner receives a money return for 

 the privilege of hunting. It is estimated that a minimum of between 

 50 and 100 acres is required per gun per season, even on the better game 

 producing areas; therefore, the rental that a club of this type can 

 afford to pay is relatively low, usually only a few cents per acre. The 

 money return to the farmer does not always compensate for the incon- 

 venience involved, particularly on high-priced or intensively managed 

 farm lands. 



FARMER COOPERATIVES 



Farmer cooperatives, in this connection, are usually established 

 to control trespass. The management and administration of such 

 units remain with the farmers. Most of the revenue is spent for 

 buying posters and for patrol. The incentive in the more successful 

 instances has not been cash profit but better protection of property. 

 Except where landowners can be prevailed upon to open previously 

 closed areas, the plan has very definite limitations. Most plans of 

 this nature include an established charge, specified and collected by 

 the landowners. A limited number of permits are available and are 

 required of all persons hunting, fishing, or trapping on the acreages 

 involved. 



Such programs have occasionally been established as sources of 

 revenue for community enterprises and the successful plans appear 

 to be always associated with some other local institution such as the 

 church, school, or grange. Cooperatives of this kind are not likely 

 to be opposed by other organized groups or by game departments so 

 long as they do not involve large tracts. Because of the restrictive 

 elements involved, the widespread adoption of this plan would mean 

 the withdrawal of hunting and fishing facilities from many indi- 

 viduals. In heavily populated areas and in intensive agricultural 

 districts, however, some restrictive measures are imperative, and this 

 arrangement probably meets with the approval of the farmers as 

 well or better than most plans. 



On one area of this kind the cost to the farmer of controlling 

 the hunters has been found to be 3.3 cents per acre for the purchase 

 of posters and the hiring of deputy wardens, with the farmers con- 

 tributing, free of cost, an equal amount in material and services. 

 The receipts from the sale of hunting privileges amount to 6.5 cents 

 per acre. Hunters have taken one piece of game for every 7 acres, 

 and the game commission traps for restocking elsewhere 1 pheasant 

 for every 22 acres. This is a total take of 1 piece of game per 5.3 

 acres.' Of the 6.5 cents per acre that the associated farmers receive 

 from the sale of hunting privileges, they have 3.2 cents per acre left 



