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



When all the increases and decreases in the number of individuals of 

 various species of wildlife are considered, the aggregate number of 

 game and wild-fur animals in relation to units of land is believed to be 

 smaller than in the past. 



IN RELATION TO HUMAN DEMANDS 



The limitation of the supply of game and wild fur in proportion to 

 the increased demand is much more evident than is the decrease in the 

 aggregate number. This demand is determined by the economic and 

 social development of the people and the density of the human 

 population. 



According to sociologists and economists, people exist in a hunting 

 and fishing stage of civilization until the game resources fail to meet 

 their needs. They then usually develop an agricultural society. Kec- 

 ords of early explorers indicate that when the Iroquois Indians were 

 discovered b}- the white men in 1608, there were probably fewer than 

 20.000 in an area that included the greater part of the present States 

 of Xew York, Pennsylvania, and Ohio, and parts of Canada bordering 

 Lake Ontario. Even these few people apparently needed more wild- 

 life for sustenance than the supply provided, for they were then in an 

 agricultural stage of civilization. This culture was well advanced 

 among the Iroquois Indians, as pointed out by Yoder. 1 



It is reasonable to assume that before the white men came the Indians 

 used game and wild fur mainly to provide the necessities of life. Their 

 demand was relatively constant and in direct proportion to the density 

 of population. The white men increased the drain on these resources, 

 for the settlers, when possible, also relied upon this supply for food and 

 clothing. Among the first evidences of this increased demand was 

 contravention of former laws and customs. According to Seton. 2 it 

 appears "that in 1684, De la Barre. Governor of Canada, complained 

 that the Iroquois were encroaching on the country of Indians who were 

 allies of the French. He got a stinging reply from Garangula, the 

 Onondaga Chief, and a general statement that the aborigines had game 

 laws ; not written, indeed, but well known, and enforced with a club if 

 need be: 'We knock the Twightwies (Miamis) and the Chictaghicks 

 (Illinois) on the head, because they had cut down the trees of peace, 

 which were the limits of our country. They have hunted Beaver on 

 our lands. They have acted contrary to the customs of all Indians, for 

 they left none of the Beavers alive ; they killed both male and female.' v 



The human population of the area outlined increased rapidly be- 

 tween 1680 and 1760. As the game supply of Pennsylvania was becom- 

 ing depleted, the legislators of that colony regulated the take by white 

 residents in an effort to protect the food supply of the Indians. Such 

 steps marked the end of the period when wildlife was essential to life. 



The demand for game and fur would probably have decreased as the 

 development of agriculture and industry advanced, if the uses for 

 game and fur had remained the same, but both whites and natives be- 

 gan to look for commodities to use in exchange. Furs, hides, antlers, 

 plumage, and other wildlife products used as luxuries, found a ready 



1 YODEU. F. R. INTRODUCTION TO AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS. New York, Thomas Y. 



Crowell. 1029, pp. 3-4. 



2 Seton. E. T. lives of game animals. New York, Doubleday, Doran, 1929, vol. 4, 

 Pt. 2, p. 499. 



