54 CIRCULAR 6 3 6, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 



hunting opportunities rather than from a desire to establish wildlife 

 as a source of income for farmers. 



A rather common attitude found among hunters and trappers was 

 that as the State claims ownership of the game and fur animals wher- 

 ever they may be, and as the game commission has sold them hunting 

 and trapping licenses, they have a right to hunt and to take possession 

 of game and fur animals wherever they are found, without regard to 

 the wishes or legal rights of the landowners, and that posting or other 

 restrictions placed upon them by the landowners constitute an in- 

 fringement of rights purchased from the State. This attitude has 

 caused the farmers further- to curtail hunting and trapping opportu- 

 nities and to force respect for property and personal rights. Fortu- 

 nately, an increasing number of hunters and trappers now realize 

 that, although they have bought a license, access to private property 

 to hunt or trap is a privilege that must be earned before being en- 

 joyed and is not a right that can be bought from the game commission. 

 An increasing number of hunters and trappers make it a point to 

 request permission to hunt or trap. This improved behavior recipro- 

 cally causes farmers to have a better attitude toward both wildlife 

 and the semipublic utilization of it. 



Farmers, in general, want to encourage and maintain a reasonable 

 supply of wildlife on their farms, but when it becomes abundant 

 enough to do appreciable damage, they want permission to control the 

 kinds and quantity of wildlife on their land, and, when hunters or 

 trappers become a nuisance, they also want to be assisted in control- 

 ling them. In many cases, where farmers have made claims for 

 damage inflicted by wildlife or have seemingly been trying to reduce 

 wildlife, it has been found that the real cause of complaint and of 

 neglect of wildlife was the hunter and trapper nuisance and not the 

 damage inflicted by wildlife. 



The Problem 



Publications are available on methods of encouraging the produc- 

 tion of game on agricultural lands. Fundamentally, however, such 

 encouragement is a problem of human relationships. Recognizing 

 that many of the more important game and wild-fur species are de- 

 pendent upon agricultural lands for a living and that hunters are 

 largely dependent upon such lands if they are to pursue their sport, 

 it is evident that the closest possible relationships should be main- 

 tained between the game and agricultural interests. Oddly enough, 

 this is not true at present. Other interests associated with agricul- 

 ture have established and maintained close contacts, yet game and 

 fur administration on the whole seems to be operated independently 

 of agricultural institutions. 



Recommendations 



No permanent or practical solution to the many problems associated 

 with the production and utilization of game and wild fur on agri- 

 cultural lands can be anticipated until the agricultural and game 

 interests are brought into closer harmony. Proper coordination can 

 materially improve this situation by bringing about a full recognition 

 of the problems confronting both groups. In the past, educational 



