GAME AND WILD-FUR PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION 55 



programs relative to game and wild fur when sponsored by game and 

 sporting interests were of such a nature that they were considered by 

 many farmers — and not a few farm leaders — as propaganda cam- 

 paigns. 



As the sporting element has the greatest interest in the situation 

 and no other group is willing to assume the task of bringing about 

 the needed coordination, it appears reasonable that those interested 

 in preserving the privilege of hunting should assume the responsi- 

 bility of achieving a better understanding. 



Provision might be made for encouraging the teaching of true 

 principles of conservation in all educational institutions, and for 

 presenting to the agricultural interests information relative to the 

 production and utilization of game and wild fur. Simultaneously 

 game interests should be informed as to the problems of the 

 agriculturist. 



Wildlife endeavors of all kinds should be coordinated with agri- 

 cultural enterprises and should include both production and 

 utilization. 



GENERAL CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 



At present, especially on good farm land, there is little or no in- 

 centive for the farmer to use his resources in the propagation of 

 game and other wildlife for public or semipublic use, because the 

 users not only fail to recompense him for his part in providing the 

 wildlife and the facilities for its enjoyment, but they also often 

 damage livestock, fences, and other property. In some sections, how- 

 ever, especially where the land is poorly adapted to farming, and 

 where trespass is rigidly controlled, there is some opportunity for the 

 farmer to increase his income by the production of wildlife for semi- 

 public use. 



In general, farmers are penalized for having wildlife, because the 

 more abundant the game or fur animals, the more harm they do 

 and the greater the nuisance and damage inflicted by hunters and 

 trappers. Most game and fur animals on farms are there in spite 

 of and not because of farming practices, whereas, if farmers received 

 proper recognition, they would in many instances encourage wild- 

 life as a byproduct of such farm practices as wood-lot management, 

 erosion control, and soil and water conservation. 



Findings of this study indicate that if wildlife is to be perpetuated 

 and enjoyed by the public, it must be produced by natural reproduc- 

 tion on private farm land as well as on publicly owned land, and 

 its utilization must be strictly controlled. Pen propagation and 

 stocking have proved to be expensive and inadequate as a direct 

 means of providing game. Publicly owned land can supply neither 

 enough wildlife nor the facilities for its utilization by the public, 

 and uncontrolled public utilization of wildlife on private farm land 

 has proved to be destructive to farm property and to wildlife. 



Sporting and esthetic uses of wildlife are luxuries in the same 

 class as golfing and horseback riding. It is no more unreasonable 

 to expect the wildlife user, particularly the hunter who actually 

 consumes wildlife, to pay to the landowner and others the full cost 

 of providing his recreation than it is to expect the golfer and horse- 



