GAME AND WILD-FUR PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION 5 



market in Europe. They were a lucrative cash crop. These new uses 

 made greater demands on wildlife than had the food and clothing 

 needs of Indians and settlers. 



By 1900, when the population of the United States approximated 

 76 millions, the supply of game available for sustenance was practi- 

 cally exhausted. Nevertheless, there was still a heavy demand for 

 both essential and nonessential uses. Efforts were made to protect 

 these resources by enactment of many laws restricting the season, take, 

 and use to which game could be put. But the demand for nonsuste- 

 nance uses grew. Occupations, through the attitudes they create in 

 people, influence the use to which game and wild fur is put. Wild birds 

 and mammals were commonplace to the Indians and hunting was a 

 major occupation, but today it is an esthetic or recreational avocation. 

 Relaxation and recreation are essential to the physical well-being of 

 people who live under mental strain in this machine age, and many of 

 them choose some use of wildlife as a means of relaxation. They spend 

 considerable time, effort, and money to preserve and perpetuate the 

 opportunities for such enjoyment. 



Demand for game is influenced also by its accessibility which in turn 

 is affected by the social and economic development of the people. The 

 Indians followed the trails on foot or worked the waterways in canoes ; 

 they had to carry the kill on their backs at least as far as their boats. 

 Many places were so inaccessible or seldom visited that little demand 

 was placed on wildlife there. Under improved transportation facili- 

 ties, the take of game is probably more evenly distributed throughout 

 the country than in the past. This accessibility makes wildlife avail- 

 able to more people and assures more complete utilization but it also 

 reduces the number of undisturbed wildlife breeding areas. 



Statistical methods cannot be used in comparing hunting pressure 

 today and in the past, for there are no comparable records. Licensees 

 are now permitted to hunt only a relatively few days each year, 

 whereas hunting was once almost a year-round occupation. There 

 appears to be no logical way of comparing the past and the present 

 with respect to kill. No one knows how much game the average Indian 

 took in a year, nor are there reliable figures on game kill by the aver- 

 age modern hunter. 



The present demand for wildlife for hunting and trapping may be 

 suggested graphically by statistics on the sale of licenses. However, 

 these show only the number of applicants for the privilege of taking 

 game and fur, and do not indicate the take. Moreover, there is wide 

 variation in license requirements among the States: Some Common- 

 wealths grant free hunting privileges to veterans, youths, the aged, 

 and other groups; most States do not require a landowner to have a 

 license to hunt or trap on his own property; some permit the resi- 

 dents of a county to hunt anywhere within that county without a 

 license and some do not require a license to hunt certain species. 



Then in some places requirements are rigidly enforced whereas in 

 others they may be overlooked. Fees vary widely. There is no 

 record of many persons who hunt and trap. Some States issue only 

 combination licenses that permit the holder to hunt, fish, and trap, 

 although the holder may do only one or two; other States require 

 separate licenses for each purpose. Even with all these limitations the 

 sale of licenses appears to be the best available statistical measure of 

 human demand on game and fur. 



