Fur harvest records maintained by the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission from 1942-1984 summarized the number of pelts sold by region (Ozark Mountains, Ouachita Mountains, Gulf Coastal Plain, and Mississippi Delta) and the average price per pelt for 16 furbearers. Analysis of these records showed that in the 1979-80 trapping season (the record year for both harvest and value both in Arkansas and the nation), the value of the Arkansas fur harvest ranked 14th nationally (2.12% of total national value). Fur harvests in Arkansas were high in the 1940\u27s, declined in the 1950\u27s and 1960\u27s and then experienced a rapid increase in the 1970\u27s and into the 1980\u27s. In all decades, the Mississippi Delta has ranked first in both numbers of pelts harvested and total value. With the exception of the 1970\u27s, the Delta has been followed by the Ozark Mountains, the Gulf Coastal Plain, and the Ouachita Mountain Region

Clark, Joseph D.

Heidt, Gary A.

Peck, James H.

Sheldon, Tiny

English

ScholarWorks@UARK

Journal of the Arkansas Academy of ScienceVolume 39 Article 201985Analysis of Arkansas Fur Harvest Records -1942-1984: I. State and Regional AccountsGary A. HeidtUniversity of Arkansas at Little RockJames H. PeckUniversity of Arkansas at Little RockTiny SheldonUniversity of Arkansas at Little RockJoseph D. ClarkArkansas Game and Fish CommissionFollow this and additional works at: http://scholarworks.uark.edu/jaasPart of the Environmental Monitoring Commons, and the Zoology CommonsThis article is available for use under the Creative Commons license: Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-ND 4.0). Users are able toread, download, copy, print, distribute, search, link to the full texts of these articles, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without asking priorpermission from the publisher or the author.This Article is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks@UARK. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of the Arkansas Academyof Science by an authorized editor of ScholarWorks@UARK. For more information, please contact scholar@uark.edu, ccmiddle@uark.edu.Recommended CitationHeidt, Gary A.; Peck, James H.; Sheldon, Tiny; and Clark, Joseph D. (1985) "Analysis of Arkansas Fur Harvest Records - 1942-1984: I.State and Regional Accounts," Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science: Vol. 39 , Article 20.Available at: http://scholarworks.uark.edu/jaas/vol39/iss1/20Arkansas Academy of Science Proceedings, Vol. XXXIX,198580ANALYSISOF ARKANSAS FUR HARVEST RECORDS-1942-1984: I.STATE AND REGIONAL ACCOUNTSGARY A. HEIDT; JAMES H. PECK; TINY SHELDON)and JOSEPH D. CLARK2'Department of BiologyUniversity of Arkansas at Little RockLittle Rock, AR 72204'Arkansas Game and Fish CommissionLittle Rock, AR 72203ABSTRACTFur harvest records maintained by the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission from 1942-1984 sum-marized the number of pelts sold by region (Ozark Mountains, Ouachita Mountains, Gulf Coastal Plain,and Mississippi Delta) and the average price per pelt for 1 6 furbearers. Analysis of these recordsshowed that in the 1979-80 trapping season (the record year for both harvest and value both in Arkan-sas and the nation), the value of the Arkansas furharvest ranked 1 4th nationally (2.1 2% of total nationalvalue). Fur harvests in Arkansas were high in the 1 940's, declined in the 1 950's and 1960's and thenexperienced a rapid increase in the 1970's and into the 1980's. In all decades, the Mississippi Deltahas ranked first in both numbers of pelts harvested and total value. With the exception of the 1970's,the Delta has been followed by the Ozark Mountains, the Gulf Coastal Plain, and the Ouachita MountainRegion.INTRODUCTIONFurbearer management problems have increased in number, scope,and intensity during the past decade in response to 1) rapidly growingdemands for furbearers and their products, 2) enactment ofcertain en-dangered species regulations and treaties, 3) a major decline inuplandwildlifehunting opportunities, and 4) growing antihunting and antitrap-ping sentiment (Hubert, 1982). Thus, harvest management programs,now and in the future, require a greater understanding of the variableswhich ultimately determine the size of furbearer populations and ofsubsequent expected harvests (Erickson and Sampson, 1978; Erickson,1981, 1982; Hubert, 1982).Arkansas and other Midsouth states have traditionally used fur harvestdata as a primary source of information for estimating the conditionof furbearer populations and subsequent management schemes(McArdle,1979; Tumlisonet al., 1981; Erickson, 1982; Hubert, 1982;Heidt et al., 1984). However, in the case ofArkansas, as in many states,fur harvest data still exists in either raw, unsummarized formor is scat-tered in various unpublished reports and Game and Fish Commissioninternal memos. Wildlife biologists are thus required to sort out andextract that information needed for management decisions. Itis the pur-pose of this series of papers to summarize and interpret the raw furharvest data that has been compiled by personnel of the Arkansas Gameand Fish Commission since 1942 and present it in a form that can easi-ly be used for further analyses. The present paper summarizes the furharvest data for Arkansas from a statewide and regional (the fourmajor physiographic regions - Ozark Mountains, Ouachita Mountains,Gulf Coastal Plain, and Mississippi Delta) level. We also discuss themost important furbearing species in each region.METHODS ANDMATERIALSFur harvest records used in this study were compiled annually since1942 by the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission (AGFC). Mean an-nual pelt values, total numbers of each species harvested, and theregional contributions of each species harvested were available for allbut a few years. For purposes ofanalyses, years withunavailable datawere generally omitted from consideration. For the mean annual peltvalues during 1979-80, which were unavailable, a value was extrapolatedfor each Arkansas species based on relative pelt value in Missouri. Nocorrection factors were applied to the data to correct for out-of-stateTable 1. The value of the 1979-1980 Arkansas fur harvest relative tothe 1979-1980 national harvest.Arkansas HarvestSpecies National Ranking/ % U. S.# states reporting HarvestOpossum 3/35 7.98Mink 7/47 4.85Spotted Skunk 8/31 4.19Bobcat 13/42 3.48Raccoon 12/48 3.04Beaver 12/48 2.72Gray Fox 18/42 2.26River Otter 17/26 1.20Striped Skunk 23/47 0.71Muskrat 21/48 0.66Coyote 21/41 0.65Long-tailed Weasel 29/39 0.15Badger 26/26 0.00Arkansas 14/50 2.12sales of Arkansas fur. Inaddition, there is no way to determine howmany pelts were actually harvested but not sold (P. Dozhier, Chair-man, American Fur Resources Institute, pers. comm.). Following themethod ofErickson and Sampson (1978), dollar values were uncorrectedfor inflation.RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONState AnalysisInan effort to gain a perspective on the relative importance ofArkan-sas fur harvests to the national total, we ranked the value of the six-80Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol. 39 [1985], Art. 20Published by Arkansas Academy of Science, 1985Arkansas Academy of Science Proceedings, Vol. XXXIX,1985 81Gary A. Heidt, James H. Peck, Tina Sheldon, and Joseph D. ClarkTable 2. Summary of the size (#of pelts sold) of Arkansas' fur harvests Table 6. Summary of the six furbearers with the largest total harvestsby decade per region. Data reflect six seasons in 1940s, nine seasons (# pelts sold) from the Ozark Region by decade for the 1942-1984in 1960s, and four seasons in 1980s; 1950s and 1970s reflect 10 full seasons,seasons.Species 1940s 1950s 1960s 1970s 1980s TotalsDecade Ozark Ouachita 6. C. P. Delta State Mean #/yr ,1. Opossum 500,005 125,125 85,311 149,577 75,066 935,0841940s 699,429 201,518 424,572 898,448 2,223,967 370,661 2. Raccoon 54,548 64,222 126,687 177,430 104,436 527,3231950s 251,240 128,846 250,911 696,139 1,610,744 161,074 3. Striped 63,205 15,296 32,693 39,136 1,557 151,8921960s 318,149 116,386 143,784 491,473 1,069,793 118,074 Skunk1970s 475,572 260,422 231,954 716,288 1,684,236 168,424 4. Muskrat 14,201 18,527 41,573 43,400 12,378 130,0791980s 223,681 146,085 178,974 352,982 901,721 225,430 5. Mink 25,418 20,368 19,450 19,223 9,203 93,6626. Gray Fox 31,389 3,786 5,232 24,226 11,534 76,167Total 1,963,071 853,257 1,230,195 3,155,330 7,206,853 184,791Totals 688,766 247,324 310,951 452,992 214,174 1,914,207Table 3. Summary ofthe value ($) of Arkansas' fur harvests by decadeper region. Data reflect six seasons in 1940s, nine seasons in 1960s, and Table 7. Summary of the six furbearers with the greatest total harvestfour seasons in 1980s; 1950s and 1970s reflect ten full seasons. values ($) from the Ozark Mountain Region by decade for the 1942-1984. seasons.Decade Ozark Ouachita G. C. P. Delta Total Mean $/yrSpecies 1940s 1950s 1960s 1970s 1980s Total1940s 726,043 323,650 1,136,101 2,158,236 4,344,030 724,0051950s 740,800 306,190 723,513 1,668,331 3,438,333 343,883 K Raccoon 81,213 53,437 182,965 2,091,133 1,466,037 3,874,8401960s 604,393 196,181 291,149 767,505 1.859,228 206,581 2. Mink 348,099 620,469 296,989 221,022 129,883 1,616,4631970s 3,943,054 2,444,333 2,320,865 4,893, R57 13,602, 110 1,360,211 3. Gray Fox 34,886 1,026 6,896 684,813 344,584 1,072,2061980s 2,221,687 1,490,356 2,113,820 3,028,737 8,854,600 2,213,650 A_Opossllm 175<401 34,503 37,079 325,720 87,785 660.488Total 8,235,977 4,760,710 6.585.448 .2,516,666 32,098.801 823.046 IJ££H t 19.o" 16,28 i\S f^S K lU'.mTotal 658,954 725,769 560,842 3,663,522 2,158,884 7,767,973Table 4. Summary of the six furbearers with the largest total harvestsI(# pelts sold) from the Mississippi Delta Region by decade for the1942-1984 seasons. Table 8. Summary ofthe six furbearers with the largest harvests (# peltssold) from the Ouachita Region by decade for the 1942-1984 seasons.Species 1940s 1950s 1960s 1970s 1980s TotalsSpecies 1940s 1950s 1960s 1970s 1980s Totals1. Raccoon 273,595 314,685 178,204 219,013 127,567 1,113,0642. Opossura 428,833 147,647 63,729 157,564 62,663 860,436 1. Opossum 134,543 55,018 25,479 86,696 38,728 340,4693. Muskrat 19,104 96,787 31,688 145,031 103,470 496,080 2. Raccoon 31,004 45,7<>8 58,360 110,539 71,732 317,9034. Mink 110,975 113,585 40,694 50,990 41,269 357,513 3. ;.Unk 15,693 19,007 11,424 9,431 8,633 64,1887. Striped 50,108 19,427 73,859 115,974 191 259,559 4. ;iu8kra t 1,793 1,613 9,429 19,827 12,921 45,533Skunk 5. Striped 12,768 5,128 8,856 12,889 520 40,1616. Beaver 0 11 913 12,126 10,077 23,127 Skunk6. Gray Fox 3,433 1,230 538 7,843 4,257 17,301Totals 882,615 692,142 389,037 700,698 345,237 3,109,7791 Totals 199,239 127,764 114,586 247,225 136,791 325,605Table 5. Summary of the six furbearers with the greatest total harvestvalues ($) from the Mississippi Delta Region by decade for the 1942-1984seasons. Tables 2and 3summarize the total Arkansas fur harvest and monetaryvalue by physiographic region and decade. When examining Table 2species 1940s 1950s 1960s 1970s 1980s Total for regional fur harvest data, it should be noted that over 283,000 pelts(3.8% of the total harvest) could not be assigned to a specific region.1. Raccoon 399,583 259,392 265,435 2.639.449 1.794.695 5.358.504 Inaddition, the omissions from Table 2 result in approximately $500,0002. Mink 1,536,124 1,262,385 291,400 628,249 584.2U 4,302,369 (1.6% of the total value) being omitted from Table 3. However, we3. Muskrat 28.742 77.082 105.174 444.286 342.379 999.664 f^l>k^t tl,>»n.lt<,,nr< tkoir ,,ol,,«,»a,,M nr^k^kl,,fitmtn tko non^nl4. Opossum 146,629 51,205 28,396 344,290 75,895 646,4165. Striped 29,902 16,232 63,741 425,484 303 535,663Skunk6. Bobcat 190 54 337 120,851 88,541 209,973Totals 2,141,170 1,666,350 754,483 4,602,609 2,886,024 12,052,589en furbearers in Arkansas to those nationally for the 1979-1980 furrvest season (Table 1). This year was chosen because it representedcord harvests, both in terms ofpelts sold and value received, for bothrkansas and the nation. National data were supplied through themerican Fur Resources Institute. Nationally, Arkansas ranked four-enth in terms oftotal value received from fur, or2.12% of the totallue of the national harvest. From a single species standpoint, opossumVdelphis virginiana), mink (Mustela vison), and spotted skunkpilogale putorius) ranked in the top ten. In addition, bobcat (Felisfus), raccoon (Procyon lotor), and beaver (Castor canadensis) alsonked quite high in national averages.feel that these pelts and their values would probably fitinto the generalpatterns demonstrated in the tables and that they represent a smallenough percentage that they would not bias the data. From these tablesitcan be seen that, over the past 42 years, over7.4 million pelts havinga value over 32 million dollars have been harvested. These figures donot account for pelts sold out-of-state, monies spent on traps, gasoline,and other fur harvesting equipment. Itcan thus be safely stated thatthe fur industry contributes considerable economic value to the state.Tables 2 and 3 further demonstrate that fur harvest was extremelyimportant during the 1940's both in terms ofnumbers ofpelts harvestedand value of the harvest. This was probably due in part, to demandsfor fur during and after World War IIthrough the Korean Conflict(these same trends have been seen for other furbearers in other partsof the country [Sargeant, 1982; Voight and Tinline, 1982]) and alsothe general depressed economic conditions in Arkansas during theseyears. As the demand for fur fell during the 1950's and 1960's, thenumber of pelts harvested as well as total value of the pelts, in spiteof inflation, also fell.However, with the resurgence in demand as well81Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol. 39 [1985], Art. 20http://scholarworks.uark.edu/jaas/vol39/iss1/20Arkansas Academy of Science Proceedings, Vol. XXXIX,198582Analysis of Arkansas Fur Harvest Records-1942-1984: I. State and Regional AccountsTable 9. Summary of the six furbearers with the greatest total harvestvalues ($) from the Ouachita Mountain Region by decade for the1942-1984 seasons.1940s 1950s 1960s 197 1980s Total¦i»Table 11.Summary of the six furbearers with the greatest total harvestvalues ($) from the Gulf Coastal Plain Region by decade for the1942-1984 seasons.1940s 1950s 1960s 1970s 1980s TotSpec1. Raccoon 41,069. 38,031 88,399 1,399,553 996,192 2,563,243 1. Raccoon 270,181 108,698 14,970 1,594,350 1,666,878 3,787,0772. Mink 219,646 244,814 71,759 127,958 124,444 788,621 2. Mink 768,163 587,940 101,635 85,156 124,576 1,667,3733. Gray Fox 3,401 318 738 245,089 131,689 381,234 3. Gray Fox 9,971 445 1,007 210,515 109,008 330,7474. Opr 372 16, 584 ll,r)21 200,457 46,522 320,455109 33 304 179,971 83,398 263,814848 1,337 8,041 152,251 45,573 210,0504. Opossum 73,786 21,424 11,097 174,389 41,409 320,455. Bobcat 77 30 389 152,336 79,056 231,88Bobcat6. Muskr , , , 51 45,573 , 50 6. Reaver 0 477 18,228 31,903 21,626 72,Total 312,445 301,117 180,702 2,305,279 1,427,818 4,527,417Table 10. Summary of the six furbearers with the largest harvests (#pelts sold) from the Gulf Coastal Plain Region by decade for the1942-1984 seasons.1940s 1950s 1960s 1970s 1980s TotalsSpe1. Raccoon 139,254 131,040 96,273 123,979 117,737 013,2882. Opossum 205,233 66,635 26,629 73,b71 35,404 407,5723. Mink 56,149 46,157 13,716 7,035 7,734 130,7914. Gray Fox 8,482 1,648 626 6,355 3,661 20,7725. Striped 13,065 2,653 688 583 147 17,136Skunk6. Beaver 0 135 3,968 5,200 4,221 13,574Totals 422,183 48,318 141,905 221,823 168,904 1,203,133as price for fur (particularly long-haired upland furbearers) during the1970's and into the 1980's, a concommitant increase in the harvest ofArkansas furbearers has been seen. Inspite of the world-wide demandfor fur, however, the relatively strong American dollar has caused salesin the mid-1980's to decline (P. Dozhier, pers. comm.).Regional AnalysisFrom Table 2, it can be seen that the Mississippi Delta region hasbeen consistently the most productive and important region in termsof fur harvest. This may be somewhat surprising considering the steadydecline in habitat due to more intensive agricultural practices over thepast 20 years. However, ifone looks at the six most commonly harvestedfurbearers from the Mississippi Delta (Table 4)which account for 98.6%of the pelts harvested, it can be seen that these species are generallyhighly adaptive to habitat disruptions, have a high reproductive poten-tial, and are generally water-related (an important habitat characteristicof the Delta) (Sealander, 1979; Schwartz and Schwartz, 1981). Table3 points out that the Mississippi Delta has also produced the greatestmonetary value ofall regions. Again this may be explained by the volumeand value of fur from the top six species which account for 96.3% ofthe harvest in the Delta Region, and the relatively high prices obtainedfor raccoon and mink, two of the most abundant furbearers taken inthe Delta (Tables 4 and 5).Tables 2 and 3 show that the Ozark Mountain Region has rankedconsistently second in terms ofboth numbers and value offur harvested.This has been due primarily to the influence of six species which ac-counted for 97.3% of the harvested pelts and 94.3% of the value ofthe fur harvest in the Ozark Mountain Region (Tables 6 and 7).During the 1940's and 1950's the Gulf Coastal Plain ranked third,but it was displaced by the Ouachita Mountain region in the 1970's.Itregained its status over the Ouachita Mountains in the 1980's. Sincetrappers inboth regions basically harvest the same major species (Tables8-11) this shift during the 1970's was due to more individuals ofeachspecies being harvested in the Ouachita Mountains, perhaps a resultofgreater trapper effort. The top six species account for 96.8% of thetotal harvest and 95.1% of the harvest value in the Ouachita Moun-tains (Tables 8 and 9) and 97.8% of the total harvest and 97.3% ofthe harvest value in the Gulf Coastal Plain (Tables 10 and 11).Total 1,122,178 720,974 148,226 2,248,649 2,042,553 6,409,7ACKNOWLEDGMENTSThe authors would like to express their appreciationto Arkansas Game and Fish Commission personnel forhaving maintained fur harvest records over the past 42years. Mr. Parker L.Dozhier, Chairman of the AmericanFur Resources Institute provided valuable advice. Thisproject was sponsored, in part, by the UALRCollege ofScience's Office of Research, Science, and Technology.LITERATURE CITEDERICKSON, D. W. 1981. Furbearer harvest mechanisms: An exami-nation of variables influencing fur harvest in Missouri. Pp.1469-1491, In Worldwide furbearer conference proceedings (J. A.Chapman and D. Pursley, eds.). Frostburg, MD.Vol2:653-1552.ERICKSON, D. W. 1982. Estimating and using furbearer harvestinformation. Pp. 53-66, InMidwest furbearer management sym-posium (G. C. Sanderson, ed.). North Central Section, CentralMountains and Plains Section, and Kansas Chapter, The Wildl.Soc, 196 pp.ERICKSON, D. W., and F. W. SAMPSON. 1978. Impact of marketdynamics on Missouri's furbearer harvest system. Proc. Ann. Conf.S.E. Assoc. Fish and Wildl. Agencies 32:17-29.HEIDT, G. A.,J. H. PECK, and L. JOHNSTON. 1984. An analysisof gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus) fur harvests in Arkansas.Proc. Ark. Acad. Sci. 38:49-52.HUBERT, G. F. 1982. History of Midwestern furbearer managementand a look to the future. Pp. 175-191. In Midwest furbearermanagement symposium (G. C. Sanderson, ed.), North CentralSection, Central Mountains and Plains Section, and KansasChapter, The Wildl. Soc, 196 pp.MCARDLE, B. 1979. The status and distribution of the red fox(Vulpesfulva) and gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus) in Arkansasas determined by a mail survey. Unpubl. Rept. to Ark.Game andFish Comm., Little Rock, AR. 17 pp.SARGEANT, A. B. 1982. A case history of a dynamic resource-the red fox. Pp. 121-138, InMidwest furbearer management sym-posium (G. C. Sanderson, ed.), North Central Section, CentralMountains and Plains Section, and Kansas Chapter, The Wildl.Soc, 196 pp.SCHWARTZ, C. W., and E. R. SCHWARTZ. 1981. The wildmammals of Missouri. Univ. ofMissouri Press, Columbia, 356 pp.SEALANDER, J. A. 1979. A guide to Arkansas mammals. RiverRoad Press, Conway, AR. 313 pp.82Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol. 39 [1985], Art. 20Published by Arkansas Academy of Science, 1985Arkansas Academy of Science Proceedings, Vol. XXXIX,1985 83Gary A. Heidt, James H. Peck, Tina Sheldon, and Joseph D. ClarkTUMLISON, C. R., A. W. KING, and L. JOHNSTON. 1981. Theriver otter in Arkansas: I.Distribution and harvest trends. Proc.Ark. Acad. Sci. 35:74-77.VOIGHT, D. R., and R. L.TINLINE. 1982. Fox rabies and trapping:A study of disease and fur harvest interaction. Pp. 139-158, InMidwest furbearer management symposium (G. C. Sanderson, ed.),North Central Section, Central Mountains and Plains Section, andKansas Chapter, The Wildl. Soc, 196 pp.83Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol. 39 [1985], Art. 20http://scholarworks.uark.edu/jaas/vol39/iss1/20

Analysis of Arkansas Fur Harvest Records - 1942-1984: I. State and Regional Accounts

UARK (University of Arkansas )

Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science Volume 39 Article 20 1985 Analysis of Arkansas Fur Harvest Records - 1942-1984: I. State and Regional Accounts Gary A. Heidt University of Arkansas at Little Rock James H. Peck University of Arkansas at Little Rock Tiny Sheldon University of Arkansas at Little Rock Joseph D. Clark Arkansas Game and Fish Commission Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.uark.edu/jaas  Part of the Environmental Monitoring Commons, and the Zoology Commons Recommended Citation Heidt, Gary A.; Peck, James H.; Sheldon, Tiny; and Clark, Joseph D. (1985) "Analysis of Arkansas Fur Harvest Records - 1942-1984: I. State and Regional Accounts," Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science: Vol. 39 , Article 20. Available at: https://scholarworks.uark.edu/jaas/vol39/iss1/20 This article is available for use under the Creative Commons license: Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-ND 4.0). Users are able to read, download, copy, print, distribute, search, link to the full texts of these articles, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without asking prior permission from the publisher or the author. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks@UARK. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science by an authorized editor of ScholarWorks@UARK. For more information, please contact scholar@uark.edu. Arkansas Academy of Science Proceedings, Vol. XXXIX,198580ANALYSISOF ARKANSAS FUR HARVEST RECORDS-1942-1984: I.STATE AND REGIONAL ACCOUNTSGARY A. HEIDT; JAMES H. PECK; TINY SHELDON)and JOSEPH D. CLARK2'Department of BiologyUniversity of Arkansas at Little RockLittle Rock, AR 72204'Arkansas Game and Fish CommissionLittle Rock, AR 72203ABSTRACTFur harvest records maintained by the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission from 1942-1984 sum-marized the number of pelts sold by region (Ozark Mountains, Ouachita Mountains, Gulf Coastal Plain,and Mississippi Delta) and the average price per pelt for 1 6 furbearers. Analysis of these recordsshowed that in the 1979-80 trapping season (the record year for both harvest and value both in Arkan-sas and the nation), the value of the Arkansas furharvest ranked 1 4th nationally (2.1 2% of total nationalvalue). Fur harvests in Arkansas were high in the 1 940's, declined in the 1 950's and 1960's and thenexperienced a rapid increase in the 1970's and into the 1980's. In all decades, the Mississippi Deltahas ranked first in both numbers of pelts harvested and total value. With the exception of the 1970's,the Delta has been followed by the Ozark Mountains, the Gulf Coastal Plain, and the Ouachita MountainRegion.INTRODUCTIONFurbearer management problems have increased in number, scope,and intensity during the past decade in response to 1) rapidly growingdemands for furbearers and their products, 2) enactment ofcertain en-dangered species regulations and treaties, 3) a major decline inuplandwildlifehunting opportunities, and 4) growing antihunting and antitrap-ping sentiment (Hubert, 1982). Thus, harvest management programs,now and in the future, require a greater understanding of the variableswhich ultimately determine the size of furbearer populations and ofsubsequent expected harvests (Erickson and Sampson, 1978; Erickson,1981, 1982; Hubert, 1982).Arkansas and other Midsouth states have traditionally used fur harvestdata as a primary source of information for estimating the conditionof furbearer populations and subsequent management schemes(McArdle,1979; Tumlisonet al., 1981; Erickson, 1982; Hubert, 1982;Heidt et al., 1984). However, in the case ofArkansas, as in many states,fur harvest data still exists in either raw, unsummarized formor is scat-tered in various unpublished reports and Game and Fish Commissioninternal memos. Wildlife biologists are thus required to sort out andextract that information needed for management decisions. Itis the pur-pose of this series of papers to summarize and interpret the raw furharvest data that has been compiled by personnel of the Arkansas Gameand Fish Commission since 1942 and present it in a form that can easi-ly be used for further analyses. The present paper summarizes the furharvest data for Arkansas from a statewide and regional (the fourmajor physiographic regions - Ozark Mountains, Ouachita Mountains,Gulf Coastal Plain, and Mississippi Delta) level. We also discuss themost important furbearing species in each region.METHODS ANDMATERIALSFur harvest records used in this study were compiled annually since1942 by the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission (AGFC). Mean an-nual pelt values, total numbers of each species harvested, and theregional contributions of each species harvested were available for allbut a few years. For purposes ofanalyses, years withunavailable datawere generally omitted from consideration. For the mean annual peltvalues during 1979-80, which were unavailable, a value was extrapolatedfor each Arkansas species based on relative pelt value in Missouri. Nocorrection factors were applied to the data to correct for out-of-stateTable 1. The value of the 1979-1980 Arkansas fur harvest relative tothe 1979-1980 national harvest.Arkansas HarvestSpecies National Ranking/ % U. S.# states reporting HarvestOpossum 3/35 7.98Mink 7/47 4.85Spotted Skunk 8/31 4.19Bobcat 13/42 3.48Raccoon 12/48 3.04Beaver 12/48 2.72Gray Fox 18/42 2.26River Otter 17/26 1.20Striped Skunk 23/47 0.71Muskrat 21/48 0.66Coyote 21/41 0.65Long-tailed Weasel 29/39 0.15Badger 26/26 0.00Arkansas 14/50 2.12sales of Arkansas fur. Inaddition, there is no way to determine howmany pelts were actually harvested but not sold (P. Dozhier, Chair-man, American Fur Resources Institute, pers. comm.). Following themethod ofErickson and Sampson (1978), dollar values were uncorrectedfor inflation.RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONState AnalysisInan effort to gain a perspective on the relative importance ofArkan-sas fur harvests to the national total, we ranked the value of the six-80Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol. 39 [1985], Art. 20Published by Arkansas Academy of Science, 1985Arkansas Academy of Science Proceedings, Vol. XXXIX,1985 81Gary A. Heidt, James H. Peck, Tina Sheldon, and Joseph D. ClarkTable 2. Summary of the size (#of pelts sold) of Arkansas' fur harvests Table 6. Summary of the six furbearers with the largest total harvestsby decade per region. Data reflect six seasons in 1940s, nine seasons (# pelts sold) from the Ozark Region by decade for the 1942-1984in 1960s, and four seasons in 1980s; 1950s and 1970s reflect 10 full seasons,seasons.Species 1940s 1950s 1960s 1970s 1980s TotalsDecade Ozark Ouachita 6. C. P. Delta State Mean #/yr ,1. Opossum 500,005 125,125 85,311 149,577 75,066 935,0841940s 699,429 201,518 424,572 898,448 2,223,967 370,661 2. Raccoon 54,548 64,222 126,687 177,430 104,436 527,3231950s 251,240 128,846 250,911 696,139 1,610,744 161,074 3. Striped 63,205 15,296 32,693 39,136 1,557 151,8921960s 318,149 116,386 143,784 491,473 1,069,793 118,074 Skunk1970s 475,572 260,422 231,954 716,288 1,684,236 168,424 4. Muskrat 14,201 18,527 41,573 43,400 12,378 130,0791980s 223,681 146,085 178,974 352,982 901,721 225,430 5. Mink 25,418 20,368 19,450 19,223 9,203 93,6626. Gray Fox 31,389 3,786 5,232 24,226 11,534 76,167Total 1,963,071 853,257 1,230,195 3,155,330 7,206,853 184,791Totals 688,766 247,324 310,951 452,992 214,174 1,914,207Table 3. Summary ofthe value ($) of Arkansas' fur harvests by decadeper region. Data reflect six seasons in 1940s, nine seasons in 1960s, and Table 7. Summary of the six furbearers with the greatest total harvestfour seasons in 1980s; 1950s and 1970s reflect ten full seasons. values ($) from the Ozark Mountain Region by decade for the 1942-1984. seasons.Decade Ozark Ouachita G. C. P. Delta Total Mean $/yrSpecies 1940s 1950s 1960s 1970s 1980s Total1940s 726,043 323,650 1,136,101 2,158,236 4,344,030 724,0051950s 740,800 306,190 723,513 1,668,331 3,438,333 343,883 K Raccoon 81,213 53,437 182,965 2,091,133 1,466,037 3,874,8401960s 604,393 196,181 291,149 767,505 1.859,228 206,581 2. Mink 348,099 620,469 296,989 221,022 129,883 1,616,4631970s 3,943,054 2,444,333 2,320,865 4,893, R57 13,602, 110 1,360,211 3. Gray Fox 34,886 1,026 6,896 684,813 344,584 1,072,2061980s 2,221,687 1,490,356 2,113,820 3,028,737 8,854,600 2,213,650 A_Opossllm 175<401 34,503 37,079 325,720 87,785 660.488Total 8,235,977 4,760,710 6.585.448 .2,516,666 32,098.801 823.046 IJ££H t 19.o" 16,28 i\S f^S K lU'.mTotal 658,954 725,769 560,842 3,663,522 2,158,884 7,767,973Table 4. Summary of the six furbearers with the largest total harvestsI(# pelts sold) from the Mississippi Delta Region by decade for the1942-1984 seasons. Table 8. Summary ofthe six furbearers with the largest harvests (# peltssold) from the Ouachita Region by decade for the 1942-1984 seasons.Species 1940s 1950s 1960s 1970s 1980s TotalsSpecies 1940s 1950s 1960s 1970s 1980s Totals1. Raccoon 273,595 314,685 178,204 219,013 127,567 1,113,0642. Opossura 428,833 147,647 63,729 157,564 62,663 860,436 1. Opossum 134,543 55,018 25,479 86,696 38,728 340,4693. Muskrat 19,104 96,787 31,688 145,031 103,470 496,080 2. Raccoon 31,004 45,7<>8 58,360 110,539 71,732 317,9034. Mink 110,975 113,585 40,694 50,990 41,269 357,513 3. ;.Unk 15,693 19,007 11,424 9,431 8,633 64,1887. Striped 50,108 19,427 73,859 115,974 191 259,559 4. ;iu8kra t 1,793 1,613 9,429 19,827 12,921 45,533Skunk 5. Striped 12,768 5,128 8,856 12,889 520 40,1616. Beaver 0 11 913 12,126 10,077 23,127 Skunk6. Gray Fox 3,433 1,230 538 7,843 4,257 17,301Totals 882,615 692,142 389,037 700,698 345,237 3,109,7791 Totals 199,239 127,764 114,586 247,225 136,791 325,605Table 5. Summary of the six furbearers with the greatest total harvestvalues ($) from the Mississippi Delta Region by decade for the 1942-1984seasons. Tables 2and 3summarize the total Arkansas fur harvest and monetaryvalue by physiographic region and decade. When examining Table 2species 1940s 1950s 1960s 1970s 1980s Total for regional fur harvest data, it should be noted that over 283,000 pelts(3.8% of the total harvest) could not be assigned to a specific region.1. Raccoon 399,583 259,392 265,435 2.639.449 1.794.695 5.358.504 Inaddition, the omissions from Table 2 result in approximately $500,0002. Mink 1,536,124 1,262,385 291,400 628,249 584.2U 4,302,369 (1.6% of the total value) being omitted from Table 3. However, we3. Muskrat 28.742 77.082 105.174 444.286 342.379 999.664 f^l>k^t tl,>»n.lt<,,nr< tkoir ,,ol,,«,»a,,M nr^k^kl,,fitmtn tko non^nl4. Opossum 146,629 51,205 28,396 344,290 75,895 646,4165. Striped 29,902 16,232 63,741 425,484 303 535,663Skunk6. Bobcat 190 54 337 120,851 88,541 209,973Totals 2,141,170 1,666,350 754,483 4,602,609 2,886,024 12,052,589en furbearers in Arkansas to those nationally for the 1979-1980 furrvest season (Table 1). This year was chosen because it representedcord harvests, both in terms ofpelts sold and value received, for bothrkansas and the nation. National data were supplied through themerican Fur Resources Institute. Nationally, Arkansas ranked four-enth in terms oftotal value received from fur, or2.12% of the totallue of the national harvest. From a single species standpoint, opossumVdelphis virginiana), mink (Mustela vison), and spotted skunkpilogale putorius) ranked in the top ten. In addition, bobcat (Felisfus), raccoon (Procyon lotor), and beaver (Castor canadensis) alsonked quite high in national averages.feel that these pelts and their values would probably fitinto the generalpatterns demonstrated in the tables and that they represent a smallenough percentage that they would not bias the data. From these tablesitcan be seen that, over the past 42 years, over7.4 million pelts havinga value over 32 million dollars have been harvested. These figures donot account for pelts sold out-of-state, monies spent on traps, gasoline,and other fur harvesting equipment. Itcan thus be safely stated thatthe fur industry contributes considerable economic value to the state.Tables 2 and 3 further demonstrate that fur harvest was extremelyimportant during the 1940's both in terms ofnumbers ofpelts harvestedand value of the harvest. This was probably due in part, to demandsfor fur during and after World War IIthrough the Korean Conflict(these same trends have been seen for other furbearers in other partsof the country [Sargeant, 1982; Voight and Tinline, 1982]) and alsothe general depressed economic conditions in Arkansas during theseyears. As the demand for fur fell during the 1950's and 1960's, thenumber of pelts harvested as well as total value of the pelts, in spiteof inflation, also fell.However, with the resurgence in demand as well81Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol. 39 [1985], Art. 20https://scholarworks.uark.edu/jaas/vol39/iss1/20Arkansas Academy of Science Proceedings, Vol. XXXIX,198582Analysis of Arkansas Fur Harvest Records-1942-1984: I. State and Regional AccountsTable 9. Summary of the six furbearers with the greatest total harvestvalues ($) from the Ouachita Mountain Region by decade for the1942-1984 seasons.1940s 1950s 1960s 197 1980s Total¦i»Table 11.Summary of the six furbearers with the greatest total harvestvalues ($) from the Gulf Coastal Plain Region by decade for the1942-1984 seasons.1940s 1950s 1960s 1970s 1980s TotSpec1. Raccoon 41,069. 38,031 88,399 1,399,553 996,192 2,563,243 1. Raccoon 270,181 108,698 14,970 1,594,350 1,666,878 3,787,0772. Mink 219,646 244,814 71,759 127,958 124,444 788,621 2. Mink 768,163 587,940 101,635 85,156 124,576 1,667,3733. Gray Fox 3,401 318 738 245,089 131,689 381,234 3. Gray Fox 9,971 445 1,007 210,515 109,008 330,7474. Opr 372 16, 584 ll,r)21 200,457 46,522 320,455109 33 304 179,971 83,398 263,814848 1,337 8,041 152,251 45,573 210,0504. Opossum 73,786 21,424 11,097 174,389 41,409 320,455. Bobcat 77 30 389 152,336 79,056 231,88Bobcat6. Muskr , , , 51 45,573 , 50 6. Reaver 0 477 18,228 31,903 21,626 72,Total 312,445 301,117 180,702 2,305,279 1,427,818 4,527,417Table 10. Summary of the six furbearers with the largest harvests (#pelts sold) from the Gulf Coastal Plain Region by decade for the1942-1984 seasons.1940s 1950s 1960s 1970s 1980s TotalsSpe1. Raccoon 139,254 131,040 96,273 123,979 117,737 013,2882. Opossum 205,233 66,635 26,629 73,b71 35,404 407,5723. Mink 56,149 46,157 13,716 7,035 7,734 130,7914. Gray Fox 8,482 1,648 626 6,355 3,661 20,7725. Striped 13,065 2,653 688 583 147 17,136Skunk6. Beaver 0 135 3,968 5,200 4,221 13,574Totals 422,183 48,318 141,905 221,823 168,904 1,203,133as price for fur (particularly long-haired upland furbearers) during the1970's and into the 1980's, a concommitant increase in the harvest ofArkansas furbearers has been seen. Inspite of the world-wide demandfor fur, however, the relatively strong American dollar has caused salesin the mid-1980's to decline (P. Dozhier, pers. comm.).Regional AnalysisFrom Table 2, it can be seen that the Mississippi Delta region hasbeen consistently the most productive and important region in termsof fur harvest. This may be somewhat surprising considering the steadydecline in habitat due to more intensive agricultural practices over thepast 20 years. However, ifone looks at the six most commonly harvestedfurbearers from the Mississippi Delta (Table 4)which account for 98.6%of the pelts harvested, it can be seen that these species are generallyhighly adaptive to habitat disruptions, have a high reproductive poten-tial, and are generally water-related (an important habitat characteristicof the Delta) (Sealander, 1979; Schwartz and Schwartz, 1981). Table3 points out that the Mississippi Delta has also produced the greatestmonetary value ofall regions. Again this may be explained by the volumeand value of fur from the top six species which account for 96.3% ofthe harvest in the Delta Region, and the relatively high prices obtainedfor raccoon and mink, two of the most abundant furbearers taken inthe Delta (Tables 4 and 5).Tables 2 and 3 show that the Ozark Mountain Region has rankedconsistently second in terms ofboth numbers and value offur harvested.This has been due primarily to the influence of six species which ac-counted for 97.3% of the harvested pelts and 94.3% of the value ofthe fur harvest in the Ozark Mountain Region (Tables 6 and 7).During the 1940's and 1950's the Gulf Coastal Plain ranked third,but it was displaced by the Ouachita Mountain region in the 1970's.Itregained its status over the Ouachita Mountains in the 1980's. Sincetrappers inboth regions basically harvest the same major species (Tables8-11) this shift during the 1970's was due to more individuals ofeachspecies being harvested in the Ouachita Mountains, perhaps a resultofgreater trapper effort. The top six species account for 96.8% of thetotal harvest and 95.1% of the harvest value in the Ouachita Moun-tains (Tables 8 and 9) and 97.8% of the total harvest and 97.3% ofthe harvest value in the Gulf Coastal Plain (Tables 10 and 11).Total 1,122,178 720,974 148,226 2,248,649 2,042,553 6,409,7ACKNOWLEDGMENTSThe authors would like to express their appreciationto Arkansas Game and Fish Commission personnel forhaving maintained fur harvest records over the past 42years. Mr. Parker L.Dozhier, Chairman of the AmericanFur Resources Institute provided valuable advice. Thisproject was sponsored, in part, by the UALRCollege ofScience's Office of Research, Science, and Technology.LITERATURE CITEDERICKSON, D. W. 1981. Furbearer harvest mechanisms: An exami-nation of variables influencing fur harvest in Missouri. Pp.1469-1491, In Worldwide furbearer conference proceedings (J. A.Chapman and D. Pursley, eds.). Frostburg, MD.Vol2:653-1552.ERICKSON, D. W. 1982. Estimating and using furbearer harvestinformation. Pp. 53-66, InMidwest furbearer management sym-posium (G. C. Sanderson, ed.). North Central Section, CentralMountains and Plains Section, and Kansas Chapter, The Wildl.Soc, 196 pp.ERICKSON, D. W., and F. W. SAMPSON. 1978. Impact of marketdynamics on Missouri's furbearer harvest system. Proc. Ann. Conf.S.E. Assoc. Fish and Wildl. Agencies 32:17-29.HEIDT, G. A.,J. H. PECK, and L. JOHNSTON. 1984. An analysisof gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus) fur harvests in Arkansas.Proc. Ark. Acad. Sci. 38:49-52.HUBERT, G. F. 1982. History of Midwestern furbearer managementand a look to the future. Pp. 175-191. In Midwest furbearermanagement symposium (G. C. Sanderson, ed.), North CentralSection, Central Mountains and Plains Section, and KansasChapter, The Wildl. Soc, 196 pp.MCARDLE, B. 1979. The status and distribution of the red fox(Vulpesfulva) and gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus) in Arkansasas determined by a mail survey. Unpubl. Rept. to Ark.Game andFish Comm., Little Rock, AR. 17 pp.SARGEANT, A. B. 1982. A case history of a dynamic resource-the red fox. Pp. 121-138, InMidwest furbearer management sym-posium (G. C. Sanderson, ed.), North Central Section, CentralMountains and Plains Section, and Kansas Chapter, The Wildl.Soc, 196 pp.SCHWARTZ, C. W., and E. R. SCHWARTZ. 1981. The wildmammals of Missouri. Univ. ofMissouri Press, Columbia, 356 pp.SEALANDER, J. A. 1979. A guide to Arkansas mammals. RiverRoad Press, Conway, AR. 313 pp.82Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol. 39 [1985], Art. 20Published by Arkansas Academy of Science, 1985Arkansas Academy of Science Proceedings, Vol. XXXIX,1985 83Gary A. Heidt, James H. Peck, Tina Sheldon, and Joseph D. ClarkTUMLISON, C. R., A. W. KING, and L. JOHNSTON. 1981. Theriver otter in Arkansas: I.Distribution and harvest trends. Proc.Ark. Acad. Sci. 35:74-77.VOIGHT, D. R., and R. L.TINLINE. 1982. Fox rabies and trapping:A study of disease and fur harvest interaction. Pp. 139-158, InMidwest furbearer management symposium (G. C. Sanderson, ed.),North Central Section, Central Mountains and Plains Section, andKansas Chapter, The Wildl. Soc, 196 pp.83Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol. 39 [1985], Art. 20https://scholarworks.uark.edu/jaas/vol39/iss1/20

https://scholarworks.uark.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2451&context=jaas

Analysis of Arkansas Fur Harvest Records - 1942-1984: I. State and Regional Accounts

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

ScholarWorks@UARK

UARK (University of Arkansas )