September, 1943 Brown & YEAGER: 
was significant and cited for 1910 valua- 
tions of $6,000 and $14,000 for minks 
and muskrats, respectively. “Che writers 
believe these figures are too low, even 
for the year involved. 
In addition to the list by Cory, several 
other state and local lists of Illinois mam- 
mals have appeared. ‘The best known are 
by Kennicott (1855), Thomas (1861), 
Hahn (1907), Wood (1910), Sanborn 
(1925), Gregory (1936), Necker & Hat- 
field (1941) and Mohr (1941). All ex- 
cept Hahn, Necker & Hatfield and Mohr 
describe the habits of Illinois fur animals 
in more or less detail. Kennicott, Sanborn 
and Gregory deal only with the Chicago 
area. Wood’s studies are limited to Cham- 
paign County, but his interesting chapter 
on mammal succession is applicable prob- 
ably to a much wider region. Necker & 
Hatfield and Mohr present the most re- 
cent information on the distribution of 
mammals throughout Illinois. 
The economics of Illinois fur animals 
were not studied in the light of present 
conditions until Driver (1930) and Ras- 
mussen (1931) compiled material on the 
yield and value of the fur resource for 
the Illinois Natural History Survey; some 
figures derived by these investigators were 
published in the Blue Book of the State 
of Illinois (Frison 1931, 1933). During 
the past few years, Mohr (1937, 1939) 
published information gathered from his 
study of Illinois trappers’ reports. “The 
Section of Fur Resources of the U. S. De- 
partment of Agriculture Bureau of Biolog- 
ical Survey (1939) and the U. S. Depart- 
ment of the Interior Fish and Wildlife 
Service (1940) published estimates of the 
total Illinois catch for several seasons 
which showed a range between 238,311 
animals in the 1934-35 season to 996,998 
animals in the 1938-39 season. “The ma- 
terial on which these figures are based 
was gathered from several sources, includ- 
ing the Illinois State Department of Con- 
servation and the I]linois Natural History 
Survey. The present study indicates that 
many of these figures are low. | 
PROJECT OBJECTIVES 
Fur animals in Illinois, as in perhaps 
every other state, are of importance from 
viewpoints other than income. In one 
form or another there is nearly always 
SURVEY OF Fur RESOURCE 
437 
the problem of predator control, which is 
brought up most frequently by farmers 
and sportsmen decrying real and alleged 
inroads of foxes, skunks and other car- 
nivores on poultry and game birds. In 
Illinois, control is vigorously opposed by 
fox-hunting groups and to a lesser extent 
by central and southern orchardists, who 
appreciate the rodent- and insect-destroy- 
ing habits of these animals. Sincere con- 
servationists of certain convictions also 
oppose control. Illinois has little or no 
beaver damage, and no appreciable prob- 
lem due to stock-killing coyotes. Wild 
dogs, sometimes reported as “wolves,”’ are 
many times more destructive to domestic 
Illinois livestock than are coyotes. During 
recent years, members of coon-hunting* 
clubs, especially in the northern half of 
the state, have desired more sport and in 
some cases have supported movements de- 
signed to eliminate the raccoon from the 
trappers’ list. 
Perhaps the chief need for an impartial, 
fact-finding study lay in the necessity for 
providing reliable information on which 
to base theoretically sound, but still prac- 
tical, fur laws. his need is particularly 
acute in Illinois due to the great north- 
south length of the state and the conse- 
quent appreciable variations in the dates 
of fur priming. Because of these varia- 
tions, the state has wisely been divided 
into three zones, namely, northern, central 
and southern, fig. 1. 
In the past, various regulations have 
marked the Illinois trapping season. The 
chief variations involve either staggered 
opening and closing dates for the three 
zones, staggered opening and closing dates 
for two or more important fur species, or 
both. “The practice generally followed, 
that of staggering opening and closing 
dates for zones, is basically sound, the 
chief objection to it being the increased 
opportunity for some trappers to work 
southward through the three zones, taking 
a disproportionate share of the fur crop. 
The second variation—staggered opening 
and closing dates for species—induces a 
situation with which trappers, even those 
who most desire to be law abiding, cannot 
cope. In laws of this type, the muskrat 
season, because of the well-known delayed 
*In this paper and the Mohr report, the words, coon 
and possum are sometimes used for raccoon and opossum, 
respectively. Both popular and literary usage seems to 
sanction the abbreviated forms of these words. 
