HILEY — BEAVER CULTURE 
197 
SOME OBSERVATIONS ON BEAVER CULTURE WITH REFER- 
ENCE TO THE NATIONAL FORESTS 
By Smith Riley 
The Federal Government has been entrusted with the responsibility 
of protecting and bringing to their highest use 156 milhon acres of 
pubHc forest land in this nation. The protection, culture and use of 
the trees, of course, is the first purpose. However, when full 
consideration is given to the variety of the types embraced in these 
reservations, it will readily be seen that the possibihty of cultural 
use covers an enormous field. Obviously, in the establishment of 
reservations to cover certain types of land, full recognition must be give 
to the place these lands occupy in national use and no opportunity 
should be lost to have them do their part in economic production. 
There are many uses to which lands producing trees can be put without 
interfering with the principal purpose. 
It has been said that the demand for fur has existed since primitive 
man sought skins to shield his body from the cold. This demand is 
fundamental and will endure while man inhabits the earth and furs 
are to be had. Its strength can be judged by the volume of trade it 
supports. In 1913 the dressed and manufactured furs imported into 
the United States were valued at more than $15,000,000. North 
American furs annually marketed in the United States and England 
have an approximate value of $60,000,000. These figures show the 
commercial importance of fur, and in addition to this the fur trade 
furnishes a livelihood for many thousands of workers in the factories 
and stores of the country. 
The fur resources of the United States have been destructively 
used throughout the whole fife of the nation. In the history of the 
fur trade there is not one instance of constructive action looking to 
the building up of this valuable resource. In Chittenden ^s accounts 
of the far western trade he repeatedly refers to the detrimental results 
in the destructive methods employed in the development of the trade. 
In the early days the Government refused to hmit the competition 
which did more than anything else to decrease fur production. Of 
later years as some states passed laws controlling the taking of fur- 
bearing animals nothing has been done to define fur production areas 
or to stabihze production by ascertaining that amount of fur of the 
different kinds which a given region should produce. That such 
action was entirely possible is shown in the experience of Canada, 
