Figure 4.1 



A 

 B 



F 

 M 

 R 



6 



217 



53 



76 



1 



Distribution of Resident and Common Migrant Vertebrate Species 

 and Subspecies of Special Concern Associated with Forest and 

 Range Land in the United States, by Section 



Alaska 



Pacific 

 Coast 



52 

 389 

 236 



M -218 

 R - 76 



Rocky 

 Mountains 



Nortti Central 



Great Plains 



A - Amphibians - 34 

 B - Birds - 458 



F - Fish - 199 



IVI - Mammals - 200 

 R - Reptiles - 115 



A 



- 32 



B 



-373 



F 



-167 



M 



- 107 



R 



-"j 



A - 6 



B - 200 ' ' , 



>" - 32 „ .,. 



M - 34 Pacific 



R - 48 Islands 



A - 102 

 B -488 

 F -382 

 M - 172 

 R - 145 



South Central 



Northeast 



'J^ 



49 

 344 

 206 



81 



48 



Southeast 



Caribbean 

 Islands 



A - 24 

 B - 284 

 F - 215 

 M - 25 

 R - 55 



which stated that wildUfe was held in trust by the Icing 

 in his role as sovereign, was the basis for U.S. law. 

 Each State retained its sovereign rights except in 

 those instances where particular rights were explicitly 

 granted to the Federal government by the Constitu- 

 tion.^ At first this philosophy was accepted as giving 

 to the States essentially full control over wild ani- 

 mals. However, the Federal role has been undergoing 

 a redefinition and expansion, at least since the late 

 1800's. The constitutional basis for the Federal role is 

 found in its treaty making, property, and commerce 

 powers. 



In general, private landowners have little legal 

 standing in the ownership and regulation of wild ani- 

 mals. Like the Federal land managing agencies, they 

 can regulate the use of animals by regulating access to 

 their properties. A series of Federal court cases is now 

 determining the extent to which Native Americans 

 are a special case and do, in fact, have property rights 

 in these resources. 



3 Bean, M. J. The evolution of national wildlife law. Council on 

 Environmental Quality. Washington, D.C. 485 p. 1977. 



Demands for Wildlife and Fish 



Demands for wildlife and fish reflect the interest of 

 people in the many types of values associated with 

 those resources. For discussion purposes, these values 

 and demands can be sorted into three partially over- 

 lapping categories: those associated with market prod- 

 ucts, with social experiences, and with ecological per- 

 ceptions (table 4.2). 



Market demands are those centered on capturing 

 the market values generated by the sale or barter of 

 wildlife (e.g., furs) and fish (food) products. The 

 extent or intensity of demand for these products is 

 usually measured by market prices and quantities 

 sold or bartered. Those wildlife and fish products that 

 are not sold or bartered but are substitutes for prod- 

 ucts that would otherwise be purchased — as where 

 sport hunters eat venison rather than beef — also 

 have "market-equivalent" values. 



Social demands are defined as demands for experi- 

 ences that require wildlife and fish; included are 

 demands for hunting, fishing, and wildlife observa- 



10 



