Because most money available to State agencies 

 concerned with fish and wildlife is derived from 

 sportsmen, a reduction in hunting and fishing partic- 

 ipation could reduce or slow the growth in State 

 funds available for fish and wildlife activities. ^^ For 

 figure 4.7, the source of the $135 million available to 

 the States for the administration of inland sport 

 fisheries and wildlife resources in 1971 are shown in 

 figure 4.7. 



Wildlife- and fish-related activities have social and 

 cultural implications, whether those activities are pri- 

 marily economic or recreational in nature. Wild 

 animals provide an opportunity for commercial 

 fishermen and trappers to maintain a particular way 

 of life and contribute to the lifestyles of recreationists. 

 Where these resources are important for ceremonial 

 or religious purposes, they may be critical to the con- 

 tinuing existence of a particular culture.^" 



The extinction of a species diminishes the Nation's 

 natural heritage and reduces future options for study 

 and, perhaps, breeding. Losing a particular com- 

 ponent of fauna from an ecosystem can lead to eco- 



2' There is evidence, for example, that waterfowl hunters have 

 been turning to woodcock in the Northeast. Artman, J. W. The 

 status of American woodcock 1975. U.S. Department of the In- 

 terior, Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington, D.C. 1975. 



For more general discussions concerning substitutability among 

 outdoor recreation activities, see: 



Hendee, J. C, and R. J. Burdge. The substitutability concept: 

 implications for recreation research and management. J. Leisure 

 Research. 6:157-162. 1974. 



Krieger, M. H. What's wrong with plastic trees? Science 179:446- 

 455. 1973. 



For discussions concerning the determinants of satisfaction in 

 hunting and fishing, see: 



Potter, D. R., J. C. Hendee, and R. N. Clark. Hunting satisfac- 

 tion: game, guns, or nature? In Trans. No. Amer. Wildl. and Nat. 

 Res, Conf. 38:220-229. 1973. 



Stankey, G. H., R. C. Lucas, and R. H. Ream. Relationships 

 between hunting success and satisfaction. In Trans. No. Amer. 

 Wildl. and Nat. Res. Conf. 38:235-242. 1973. 



For a discussion of the contribution of general outdoor recrea- 

 tion activities to physical and mental health, see the earlier chapter 

 on outdoor recreation. 



2* The prices recreationists will pay to use private lands for wild- 

 life or fish-centered recreational activities sometimes have been 

 found to be greater than the values of those lands in commodity 

 production. For example, an Arizona study found that twice as 

 many dollars could be charged for sport hunting on certain Ari- 

 zona rangelands as for cattle ranching. Martin, W. E., and R. L. 

 Gunn. Economic value of hunting, fishing, and general rural out- 

 door recreation. Wild. Soc. Bui. 6(l):3-7. 1978. 



2' Wildlife Management Institute. National survey of state fish 

 and wildlife funding. Washington, D.C, 40 p. 1973. 



3" For a comprehensive discussion of the cultural significance of 

 salmon in the Northwest, see Department of Agriculture and 

 Resource Economics, Oregon State University. Socio-economics 

 of the Idaho, Washington, Oregon, and California coho and Chi- 

 nook salmon industry. Report to the Pacific Fishery, Management 

 Council. Corvallis, Oreg. Vols. A and B. 1978. 



nomic losses, as when reductions in the populations 

 of birds that eat insects lead to buildups of insect 

 populations; these insects then must sometimes be 

 controlled by chemicals or the introduction of preda- 

 tors. And a reduction in the variety of wildlife in a 

 particular area probably diminishes the satisfaction 

 of many recreationists. 



A somewhat similar cost is incurred when animal 

 populations are out of balance with the way man 

 chooses to use lands. Animals cause economic losses 

 by destroying agricultural crops and livestock, delay- 

 ing successful regeneration, and reducing growth 

 rates on forest lands. It is believed that the value of 

 agricultural crops lost to wildlife exceeds $100 million 

 per year. Rodents probably cause the most damage, 

 but birds and mammals also are locally important 

 causes of damage to particular crops. Losses of live- 

 stock to predators were reported at about $170 mil- 

 lion in the 22 Western States in 1973, including S80 

 million for cattle and calves, $53 million for sheep 

 and lambs, $32 million for chickens and turkeys, and 

 $5 million for pigs and hogs. Coyotes, bears, foxes, 

 lions, raccoons, and skunks all contributed to these 

 losses. 3' 



Problems in Improving the Status 

 of Wildlife and Fish 



The preceding has compared trends in demands 

 and supplies and broadly discussed the implications 

 of any future imbalances. This section provides an 

 overview of the factors that inhibitcorrecting imbal- 

 ances, primarily from the perspective of the forest 

 and range land manager. 



The major problems facing managers have been 

 ranked by importance for each part of the Nation by 

 Forest Service wildlife and fisheries biologists, who 

 are charged with very broad land and water manage- 

 ment responsibilities for the National Forest System. 

 These problems, listed in order of overall national 

 importance, are presented in table 4.17. 



Greatest concern was shown for the broad category 

 of conversions of forest and range vegetative types by 

 man. Such conversions alter faunal communities 

 radically. More specifically, the continuing loss and 

 degradation of wetlands and riparian zones and of 

 old-growth components of forests pose significant 

 problems in discharging Federal land management 



31 U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service 

 National Animal Damage Control Program: environmental state- 

 ment (preliminary draft). Washington, D.C. 1978. 



U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. 

 Sheep and lamb losses to predators and other causes in the western 

 United States. Agriculture Economic Report 369. Washington, 

 D.C. 41 p. 1977. 



133 



