>UTDO0R ECREATION... Potential in East Texas i nxas m UNIVERSITY nus AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT snnou - - - nxns AGRlBlll ~ flnllnnl Qhlinn Tmme The authors Wish to express th Texas Game and Fish Commission (no Parks and Wildlife Department) ; to Ho head; and Eugene A. Walker, directo of that organization for making availalié; of hunting and fishing in Texas. The aut? so indebted to R. B. Davis, associate professor, De “inent of Wildlife Management, Texas A&M University; and Wallace Klussmann, specialist in wildlife conservation, Texas Agricultural Exten- sion Service, for their assistance involving fish and wildlife problems. eys A. C. Allen, sanitarian, Bryan-Brazos County Health Unit, Bryan, Texas, has been helpful in matters concerning state health regulations pertaining to recreational develop- ments. The State Department of Health also has provided assistance on health and sanitary regulations Whenever re- quested. Appreciation also is expressed to those county agricul- tural agents, Texas Agricultural Extension Service; and work unit conservationists, Soil Conservation Service, U. S. Depart- ment of Agriculture; for their assistance and direction in locat- ing the recreation developments in Economic Area XIII. The Fo-rest Service, U. S. Department of Agriculture, has provided useful information from their experience in operating recreational developments in East Texas. Some of this infor- mation is incorporated in this report. Outdoor recreation is big business in and there are strong indications that 1 become much larger in the future as recrl resources are developed, incomes rise and tion continues to increase. In 1960, Texans spent $383 million o and fishing; this is more than dou ount spent on the same activities rticipation in these activites increased 1 it or 800,000 in the 5-year period. itely 2.4 million, or 1 out of every 3 I years old and over, hunted and fished ' Population projections for the State show lation increase of 2,132,000 for the peril 70. These upward trends in expenditu ticipation and population should contin .4 ‘ r _). the future, and demand for all types of p door recreation should be up considerably j the 1960 level. q The 12-county study area designated East . 1 as Area XIII is strategically located for rec- tional use. It is within a 200-mile radius i, nine Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas ithe State which account for more than 40 ent of the population of Texas and is less 100 miles from the 1.5 million people liv- y. in nearby metropolitan areas. These popula- n centers are areas where the average median 1 ily income per year was $5,225 in 1960, or 2.1 above the average for the State. In 1960 were approximately 375,000 hunters and hermen living less than 100 miles from Eco- g ic Area XIII. There should be sufficient ulation in nearby areas to support intensive elopment of outdoor recreation facilities in nomic Area XIII. i‘ The resources of Economic Area XIII ap- p to be extremely well adapted for outdoor ‘reational use. Three-fourths of the area is ’ ‘sted and there are sufficient water supplies f: lake sites to provide for a wide array of I er-based recreational activities. There are , y species of fish and game available to sports- ,1 and with proper management the supply be increased considerably. One apparent disadvantage to the area is l} relatively high combined temperature and idity during the summer vacation months. i; is primarily a disadvantage when consider- vacation tourists and should not be a very rtant detraction for weekend users. This dvantage is offset to a large degree by the "Ant spring and fall seasons and a mild I‘. It is difficult to determine what effect public lopments in the area will have upon the ‘and for privatekyl» supplied recreation. In some types of recreation such as boating and water skiing, public developments will probably be utilized extensively. However, when multiple- activity enterprises are developed and managed carefully to suit consumer preferences and pro- vide individual service, then these developments should compete favorably with public facilities. The supply of farm-produced recreation in relation to the potential is very limited in this East Texas area encompassing more than 9,900 square miles of land and 20,600 acres of water. In 1961 farm producers supplied hunting, fishing, camping, swimming, boating and picnicking facili- ties to more than 10,000 users, with fishing ac- counting for nearly 90 percent of the use. How- ever, less than $100,000 was invested in facilities and approximately $175,000 in lakes and ponds. Most of the operations supplied only a bare minimum in facilities with a corresponding low return on investment. Returns above specified costs ranged from no return to more than $7,000 per year. Several factors should be considered by potential producers of outdoor recreation. Some of the more important considerations are the human factors involving management and enter- prise selection, farm resources, liability risks, capital restrictions, location, demand and per- sonal and community attitudes toward recreation. Multiple - activity recreational enterprises should be especially well-suited for this area of East Texas. Small fishing lakes provide the base around which such activities as camping, fishing, picnicking, boating and swimming can be built. Fresh water fishing is very popular as indicated by 32 operators reporting that nearly 10,000 sportsmen fished in their lakes in 1961. Commercialized hunting, especially small game hunting, is now developing in the area and should be increasingly important in the future. This area should become a major supplier of outdoor recreation in Texas. Summary and Implications .................................................................. __ 2 Introduction ............................................................................................. __ 5 Purpose and Scope .................................................................................. __ 5 Recreation Trends .................................................................................. __ 6 Population .......................... -._ ............................................................ __ 6 Time Spent Hunting and Fishing ....................................... "a ________ __ 7 Distance Traveled by Automobile for Hunting and Fishing.-- 7 Types of Fishing Areas ................................................................. .. 7 Expenditures for Hunting and Fishing ....................................... __ 7 Potential Demand for Outdoor Recreation _________________________________________ __ 7 Population ......................................................................................... -. 8 Income .............................................................................................. -_ 8 Resources of Economic Area XIII ....................................................... __ 9 Land and Water .............................................................................. __ 9 Precipitation .................................................................................... __ 11 Temperature .................................................................................... __ 11 Field Survey .................................................................................... __ 11 Recreational Use of Land .............................................................. __ 11 Number of Users ............................................................................ __ 11 Lease Arrangements ...................................................................... __ 11 Investment in Recreational Facilities __________________________________________ __ 12 On-Farm Recreation in Economic Area XIII _____________________________________ __ 13 Gross Returns from Recreation ___________________________________________________ __ 13 Costs and Returns from Case Studies .......................................... __ 14 Some Factors to be Considered by Potential Recreation Suppliers. 17 Types of Recreation ............................................................................... __ 18 Hunting ............................................................................................ __ 18 Shooting Resorts ............................................................................ __ 19 Fishing ............................................................................................. __ 20 Campgrounds and Supporting Facilities and Activities __________ __ 22 Sources of Assistance ............................................................................ __ 26 Technical Assistance ...................................................................... __ 26 Financial Assistance ...................................................................... __ 26 Camping Magazines ........................................................................ __ 26 Sportsmen’s Clubs and Camping Associations ___________________________ __ 26 Selected References ................................................................................ __ 27 General .............................. ..' ............................................................. __ 27 Outdoor Recreation Studies and Reports ____________________________________ __ 27 Vacation Farms ______________________________________________________________________________ __ 27 Facilities ........................................................................................... __ 27 Farm Management, Insurance and Credit ___________________________________ __ 27 Game Production and Management _____________________________________________ __ 23 Fish and Lake Management _________________________________________________________ __ 23 Insect and Poisonous Plant Control _____________________________________________ __ 23 Sanitation and Water Supplies _____________________________________________________ __ 23 Laws and Regulations ____________________________________________________________________ __ 29 Bibliographies .................................................................................. _ 29 References Cited _____________________________________________________________________________________ __ 29 Contents UTDOOR RECREATION ACTIVITIES of I _ various types have experienced a steady in- ease in demand in the United States during , .1 past decade. Such factors as increased per pita income, growth in population, more lei- f re time and improved transportation facilities ve made it possible for large number of Amer- ins to turn to the outdoors for recreation. i, Outdoor recreation is big business in Texas i; well as in the nation and indications are that Will become much larger in the future. In exas approximately 2.4 million, or one out of ery three Texans 12 years old and over, en- ged in some sport fishing and hunting in 1960. is» is an increase of 800,000 participants in 5 rs. Texas sportsmen spent $383 million on nting and fishing in 1960, more than double 25$??? million spent on the same activities in Purpose‘ and Scope a The purpose of this study was to determine jthe resources of East Texas Economic Area spectively, assistant professor, associate professor and irmer research assistant, Department of Agricultural - vonomics and Sociology. Outdoor Recreation . . . Potential in East Texas Ivan W. Schmedemann, A. B. Wooten and W. D. Franklini‘ XIII (2) are suitable for developing profitable on-farm outdoor recreational enterprises. This area is of minor importance from the standpoint of agricultural production. Lumber and oil production and related activities have provided the main sources of income to the peo- ple in the area in the past. Agriculture mainly has served to hold a supply of labor in the area for these activities. With the diminishing eco- nomic importance of lumber and oil in recent years, new resource uses are needed to provide additional sources of income. It is hypothesized that many landowners in the area have land and water resources that could be developed into pro- fitable recreational uses, and that sufficient de- mand exists to utilize large quantities of rec- reational facilities. More specifically, answers to the following questions were sought: 1. What trends exist in Texas which give an indication of present and future demand for outdoor recreation? 2. Is there sufficient potential demand to justify the allocation of some resources into recreational uses in Economic Area XIII? 3. What resources does Economic Area XIII have that are suited for recreational use? 4. What types of private recreational facili- ties have been developed and what have been the returns? 5. What factors should be considered by potential recreation producers? 6. What types of recreational enterprises are suited for the area? 7. What sources of credit and technical as- slstance are available to landowners interested in recreation as an enterprise? Recreation Trends Population One-third of all Texans 12 years old and older did some fishing and hunting in 1960. The number of these outdoor sportsmen has in- creased by more than 800,000 from the 1955 fig- ure of 1,600,000. This represents a 50 percent in- crease in 5 years. During the period 1950-60, the number of Texans 12 years old and older increased nearly 1,152,000. Thus, part of the Table 1. Participation of Population, 12 Years Old and Over, in Hunting and Fishing, Texas, 1955 and 19601 Participation by persons Characteristics 12 years old and over change 1955 1960 1955-60 1 ,0O0 Per- 1 ,0O0 Per- persons cent persons cent Percent Hunters and fishermen Total2 1,625 26.8 2,426 33.2 + 49.3 Sex (18 years and over) Male 981 38.1 1,320 46.3 + 25.7 Female 429 15.9 708 21.8 + 65.0 Age 12-17 years 215 26.8 398 33.5 + 85.1 18-24 years 171 23.0 318 33.6 + 86.0 25-44 years 777 33.5 915 35.8 + 17.8 45 years and over 462 20.9 795 30.5 —|— 72.1 Fishermen Total2 1,418 23.3 2,185 30.0 + 54.1 Sex (18 years and over) Male 815 31.7 1,133 39.7 + 39.0 Female 421 15.6 671 20.6 -|- 59.4 Age 12-17 years 182 22.7 381 32.0 +109.3 18-24 years 140 18.8 292 30.8 +108.6 25-44 years . 689 29.7 810 31.7 —|- 17.6 45 years and over 407 18.4 702 26.9 —|— 72.5 Hunters Total’ 709 11.7 1,049 14.4 —|- 48.0 Sex (18 years and over) Male 555 21.6 762 26.7 —|— 37.3 Female 52 1.9 100 3.1 —|- 92.3 Age 12-17 years 102 12.7 187 15.7 —|- 83.3 18-24 years 90 12.1 158 16.7 + 75.5 25-44 years 339 14.6 394 15.4 -|- 16.2 45 years and over 178 8.1 310 11.9 + 74.2 :1 O. 2 ID :r Source: Bureau of Census study prepared for Texas Game a Commission, 1961. ‘Proiected from a sample in terms of total population, 12 years old and over. “Percentages are of the total population, 12 years old and over, all others are percentages of total population within classes. 6 increased demand can be attributed to tion growth; however, a large percentage,’ increase can be classified as new pa f in these sports. The projected popul; Texas in April 1970 is estimated at 11,6 This represents an increase in popul 2,132,000 between 1960 and 1970 (4).§,i< 1955-60 trend in huntinggind fishing c0_ the demand will be up ‘considerably f 1960 level. Female participation in both sports of percentages has increased more rapi male participation, Table 1. The female-l; tion of any group was in the 25-44-year if] population and is expected to continue i in the future, with a projected sex ratio; males per 100 females in 1970 as com] 98.1 males per 100 females in 1960 (4); ever, in total numbers, more than twice males as females hunted and fished it in 1960. i The lowest percentage increase in if tion of any group was in the 25-44 year w‘ However, they constituted the largest? accounting for more than one-third of all; men and hunters in 1960. For some reaso increase in participation of this group h . somewhat in relation to other age grou _, cause is perhaps related to income, leis s; and prevailing attitudes. Another facto "- this group is undoubtedly bearing the tion of the financial burden of those pa sf in the 12-17-year-old class. However, " ing at the percentage increase of 85 -~ the two preceding age groups it is reas_ expect that this increase will be carried if into the 25-44-year-old group and that the will show a considerable increase in fut 0 é Activity in the 45-year and over p, has increased more than 70 percent the 5-year period. This amounts to cant increase in real numbers since i; group accounted for one-third of all hun fishermen in 1960; however, when the =1. 45 and over is broken into two groups: 45 64 and 65 and over, the percentage of pa f; within the latter group was 13 perce 3 than the percentage of participants injf; 64 age group in 1960. This reduction ca pected because of the rather strenuous} of these activities, but increase-s can be , in total numbers as this group becomes , part of the total population. In looking at the population pat forth, and the increase in participation j, ing and fishing, it is reasonable to =6: considerable increase in all outdoor rec 1 activities. The percentage of increases , cipation was especially high in the low a * and it seems logical to expect that these i' will be carried forward into the older a , in future years, especially with antici, creases in income, leisure time and if transportation facilities. '1 1e Spent Hunting and Fishing Texans spent nearly 55 million man-days‘ ting and fishing in 1960, and made over 47 ,1 ion trips for this purpose. Forty million -days were devoted to fishing and 15 mil- a man-days to hunting. Fishing Was more ular than hunting, accounting for nearly three- ‘i hs of the time; fresh water fishing alone ’ ‘unted for more than 6O percent of sportsmen’s , -days spent in these activities. The percent- , of the population, 12 years and older, doing ye sport fishing increased from 23 percent ' 955 to 30 percent in 1960. Fresh Water fish- * caused an increase of 19 to 26 percent. Salt _ er fishing remained nearly constant at about percent. Hunters accounted for 14 percent ithe population in 1960, an increase of only rcent from 1955 (3). “ ance Traveled by Automobile for ting and Fishing ‘ Texas fishermen and hunters traveled more i 2.5 billion miles in automobiles in 1960, 1*» 2. This represents an increase of 128 ent from 1955 to 1960. An average of 1,097 s Was traveled per sportsman. Seventy- e percent of the traveling was for fishing, , fresh Water fishing alone accounting for 1 half of the distance traveled. Hunters did htly more than 25 percent of the traveling, i, almost 60 percent of the total hunter travel l by small game hunters. -~ of Fishing Areas areas in the State Were man-made lakes. put 70 percent of all the fishing was done in Ifi: lakes, and large lakes carried nearly 50 ; ent of the total fishing load. Small man- . e lakes and streams each accounted for about percent of the use. The amount of fishing uld increase as additional lakes are con- cted, especially in those areas Where large “ulations are Within 1 to 2 hours’ driving dis- e. The availability of recreational oppor- 'ties is an important factor in stimulating and. Water-based recreational activities ‘e become very popular in many mid-Western ,' where large reservoirs have recently been tructed. The use figures for lake-s, rivers _ streams are set forth in Table 3. nditures for Hunting and Fishing portsmen in Texas spent $383 million on 'ng and fishing in 1960, a 132 percent in- over the $165 million spent for the same ities in 1955, Table 4. The average expendi- ' per sportsman Was $158 in 1960 as com- J with $102 in 1955. j Fishermen spentl $285 million in 1960, an A age of $130 per fisherman. This is an in- i; of $43 from the 1955 average. Hunter nditures averaged $93 in 1960, an increase 4 over the average for 1955, as indicated in '-day—any part of a day spent by one man hunting f: hing. In 1960 the most popular fresh Water fish- . Table 2. Automobile Miles and Passenger Miles Traveled for Fish- ing and Hunting, Texas, 19601 Miles traveled by automobile for fishing and hunting Activity by sportsmen Avemge Automobile Passenger passenger milesz miles‘ miles 1,000 1,000 miles miles Number Fishermen and hunters 1,168,706 2,660,300 1,097 Fishermen 851,200 1,937,716 886 Fresh water 621,206 1,360,494 710 Salt water 229,994 577,222 1,040 Hunters 317,507 722,585 689 Waterfowl 27,352 72,625 494 Small game 186,138 430,008 538 Big game 104,017 219,952 52o Source: Bureau of Census study prepared for Texas Game and Fish Commission, 1961. lProiected from a sample in terms of total population. 2Number of miles covered by automobiles on trips taken chiefly for hunting and fishing. 3Number of miles fishermen and hunters traveled in automobiles on trips taken chiefly for hunting and fishing. Table 5. Total expenditures of hunters in 1960 Were $98 million. The increases in expenditures can be parti- ally explained by population growth, increased incomeZ, rising prices, and credit financing of sporting equipment. The State's hunting and fishing resources have been continually develop- ing during this period and in the case of hunt- ing, a rather effective marketing system has emerged. However, even this system is not de- veloped and intensive enough in many areas to move the available supply of deer into the hunter market. Another important factor is the ap- parent increased desire of the urbanized popula- tion for all types of outdoor recreation, of which hunting and fishing are important parts. Potential Demand for Outdoor Recreation Profitable allocation of resources into rec- reatlonal enterprises requires a large and con- tinuous demand for the recreation produced. 2The median family income in Texas in 1960 was $4,884. This is an increase of 80 percent over the median family income of Texans in 1950, when it was $2,716. These figures have not been corrected for price changes. Table 3. Types of Fresh Water Used by Fishermen, Texas, 19601 Types of fresh water fished Fresh water fishermen 1 ,000 persons Percent Total 1,915 100.0 Man-made Lakes Large 91 8 47.9 Smallz 421 22.0 Natural Lakes 145 7.6 Rivers and Streams 431 22.5 Source: Bureau of Census study prepared for Texas Game and Fish Commission, 1961. ‘Projected from a sample in terms of total population. zGenerally farm ponds. Table 4. Expenditures of Fishermen and Hunters by Expenditure Items, Texas, 1955 and 19601 Expenditure items by Amount spent by type of sportsmen fishermen and hunters Change 1955 1960 1,000 1 ,000 Percent dollars dollars Fishermen and hunters Total 165,054 382,769 +131.9 Equipment total 58,898 198,436 +236.9 Hunting and Fishing 28,740 72,223 +151.3 Otherz I 30,158 125,211 +318.5 Trip 94,679 156,168 + 64.9 Licenses and leases 3,464 13,649 +294.0 Othera 8,013 14,519 + 81.2 Fishermen Total 122,919 285,027 +131.9 Equipment total 39,861 144,345 +262.1 Fishing 12,545 28,663 +128.5 Other’ 27,316 115,683 +323.5 Trips 80,033 130,286 + 62.8 Licenses and leases 1,506 5,353 +255.4 Other“ 1,519 5,047 +232.3 Hunters Total 42,135 97,747 +131.9 Equipment total 19,037 54,094 +184.2 Hunting 16,195 43,564 +169.0 Otherg 2,842 10,531 +270.5 Trips 14,646 25,881 + 76.7 Licenses and leases 1,958 8,297 +323.7 Otherg 6,494 9,475 + 45.9 Source: Bureau of Census study prepared for Texas Game and Fish Commission, 1961. ‘Projected from a sample in terms of total population. zCost of purchase of other equipment not limited by design to use in fishing and hunting, such as special clothing, cooking equipment, binoculars, tents and trailers. “Cost of fishing and hunting magazines, general club dues, entrance fees for fishing or hunting on public lands, and costs not covered elsewhere. This in turn requires large concentrations of population with an income sufficient to purchase consumer goods in large quantities above and beyond those goods which are classified as basic necessities. In the aggregate, Economic Area XIII does not appear to have a large internal population with an above-average income which could sup- port the intensive development of resources into recreational uses, even though the physical re- sources of the area are sufficient to produce large quantities of outdoor recreation. This is further substantiated by the population and in- come data appearing in Tables 6 and 7. . Source: Bureau of Census, “United States Census of I Average Expenditures of Fishermen and Hunters by Expenditure Items, Texas, 1955 and 1960 Table 6. Population of the State, Counties in Economicl and Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas Within 200 v Approximate Center of Economic Area Xlll, Texas, 1950 Population P°P"l°ll°" "Teas 1950 1960 Number of Number of .1 persons persons ' State: 7,711,194 9,579,677 Counties in Economic Area XIII: Angelina 36,032 39,814 Hardin 19,535 24,629 i Jasper 20,049 22,100 ~ Montgomery 24,054 26,839 Newton 10,832 10,372 Polk 16,194 13,861 Sabine 8,568 7,302 5 San Augustine 8,837 7,722 I_. San Jacinto 7,172 6,153 Trinity 10,040 7,539 Tyler 1 1,292 10,666 Walker 20,163 21,475 __ TOTAL 193,218 198,472 I Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas: Austin 160,980 212,136 Beaumont-Port Arthur 235,650 306,016 Dallas 743,721 1,083,601 Fort Worth 392,613 573,215 Galveston-Texas City 113,066 140,364 Houston 806,701 1,243,158 Texarkana (Tex-Ark) 94,498 91,657 Tyler 74,701 86,350 Waco 130,194 150,091 TOTAL 2,752,124 3,886,588 1960, Texas," Washington: Government Print] 1961. Population The population of the area has ={ nearly static at 200,000 during the '8 period While the total population of th increased nearly 25 percent. Seven ofif counties actually lost population from ~ 1960; however, this trend was not unu those areas having predominately rural 1 tions. ‘ Income The income situation improved s for the area during the 1950-60 period not keep pace with the State as a WlIOl. average median family income for '3 Table 5. Expenditures E d.‘ E d.‘ Expllindllure bylélsirelli-Ein Change bylpfailslhclarlrlrlgh Change blselluhtleltllss '°'“ 19:5 " 136° 195s 1960 195s 1960 Dollars Percent Dollars Percent Dollars Total $102 $158 + 54.9 $87 $130 + 49.4 $59 $93 Equipment 36 82 +127.7 28 66 +135.7 27 52 Hunting and fishing equip. 18 30 + 66.7 9 13 + 44.4 23 42 Other equip. 19 52 +173.7 19 53 +178.9 4 10 Trip expenditures 58 64 + 10.3 56 60 + 7.1 21 25 Other expenditures 7 12 + 71.4 2 5 +150.0 12 17 Source: Bureau of Census study prepared for the Texas Game and Fish Commission, 1961. 8 i0 was $4,884, but in Economic Area XIII it a less than $3,000. I When considered from the standpoint 0f ulation and income, Economic Area XIII does . have enough people within its boundaries to a uce a demand sufficient to justify the de- pment of a large commercial supply of out- é recreation. However, the area is strategi- y located to nearby population centers and . the resources, in terms of land and water, ‘ejbecome a major supplier of outdoor recrea- . Figure 1 illustrates its location in relation the nine Standard Metropolitan Statistical as?’ in the State that accounted for more than percent of total population of Texas. These , areas where the median family income , year is $5,225 or $341 above the aver- i for the State. During 1950-60, the popula- .1 increase in these nine areas averaged more in 40 percent. Sixteen percent, or more than p million of the people in Texas live in two A’s located less than 100 miles from Eco- ' ic Area XIII. Studies from other sections the country have found that weekend users 1 ecreation will generally drive for as long as yurs in one direction (5). Much of the above ulation is Within an hour’s drive of the center "I he area and should be counted in the demand ntial. 1 With proper development of the area, vaca- ers should be attracted from anywhere within I ZOO-mile radius that includes the seven ritional SMSA’s and over 2 million more people. One out of three Texans 12 years old and T, did some hunting and fishing in 1960. ed on this data there are approximately ,000 hunters and fishermen living in SMSA’s hin a 100-mile radius of Economic Area .l and nearly one million in the nine SMSA’s in the 200-mile radius shown in Figure 1. se figures give some indication of the aggre- J demand for outdoor recreation; however, do not explain what types and quantities iutdoor recreation are desired and the corres- ‘ding prices consumers are willing to pay. , Resources of Economic Area XIII I d and Water I This area encompasses more than 9,900 a re miles of land and 20,600 acres is water. . four major river basins in the area are the pity, Neches, San Jacinto and Sabine (6). F Sabine River is the eastern boundary between and Louisiana. Soon there will be four tandard Metropolitan Statistical Area (SMSA), as I ed by the Bureau of Census, includes a city or cities 0,000 or more persons and the contiguous territory is considered to be integrated economically with cities. In some cases, only the county in which the m l city of 50,000 or more is located may constitute SMSA, while in others, it may include more than one ty. In 1960, Texas had 21 SMSA’s that included tal of 30 counties. Table 7. Median Family Incomes of the State, Counties in Economic Area XIII, and Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas Within 200 Miles of the Approximate Center of Economic Area XIII, Texas, 1950 and 1960 Immme ("e95 bY Median family income state, counties, iii- Change and SMSA’s 1950 1960 Dollars Dollars Dollars State: 2,716 4,884 2,168 Counties in Economic Area XIII: Angelina 2,209 4,245 2,036 Hardin 2,248 4,523 2,275 Jasper 1,733 3,485 1,752 Montgomery 1,856 3,724 1,868 Newton 1,463 2,548 1,058 Polk I 1,844 2,806 962 Sabine 1,557 2,517 960 San Augustine 1,073 2,233 1,160 San Jacinto 1,054 1,737 683 Trinity 1,394 2,341 947 Tyler 1,684 2,694 1,010 Walker 1,579 2,787 1,208 Average of medians 1,641 2,970 1,329 Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas: Austin 2,933 5,058 2,125 Beaumont-Port Arthur 3,624 5,910 2,377 Dallas 3,433 5,925 2,755 Fort Worth 3,256 5,617 2,441 Galveston-Texas City 3,342 5,375 2,033 Houston 3,476 6,040 2,564 Texarkana (Tex-Ark)1 3,817 Tyler‘ 4,603 Waco 2,553 4,684 2,131 Average of medians 3,231 5,225 Source: Bureau of Census, “United States Census of Population: 1960, Texas," Washington, D.C., Government Printing Of- fice, 1961. lNot classed as a standard metropolitan statistical area in 1950. large reservoirs in the area, each larger than 5,000 acres. The following structures either exist or are proposed: Livingston Reservoir, Dam “B” Reservoir, Sam Rayburn Reservoir, and Toledo Bend Reservoir (7). There are a large number of smaller lakes and streams throughout the area. Generally, an adequate supply of ground water is available for domestic use in most of the area, thus water supplies for recreation should not be a problem. There are parts of four National Forests in the area, including over one-half million acres of land (8). Several well-developed public rec- reational sites are located in these forests. Some of these facilities were originally built in the 1930’s and have been steadily improved since that time. The use of these recreational facilities in most cases has been heavy and many additional areas are being planned ‘and developed for pub- lic use. The entire 12-county area considered in this study lies Within the pine-covered portion of Southeast Texas. The humid climate is favor- able for rapid growth of the timber that covers most of the area. However, a decrease of 8 per- cent or 600,000 acres of forests in Southeast Texas is predicted by 1975 (9). Southeast Texas 9 ‘Additional counties: AREA POPULATION Texarkana 9| ,657 Tyler 86,350 Ft. Worth 573, 2. I5 Dallas l, 083,60l Waco I50, 09! Austin 2l2, I36 Houston L243, I58 Beaumont-Port Arthur 306,0l6 Galveston-Texas City l40,364 0 Population Center Figure 1. Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas and Populations within 200 miles from approximate cen of Economic Area XIII, 1960. (Source: Bureau of Census, “United States Census of Population: 1960, Texas,” Was r ington: Government Printing Office, 1961.) in this case includes six counties in addition to those in Economic Area X1114. Most of the de- cline in forest acreage is due to condemnation for water reservoirs, highways, roads, utility lines, expansion of urbanized areas, and develop- ment of recreational areas. The forests of the area are predominately pine. Mixed forests of oak, gum, cypress, elm, ash and cottonwood occur along rivers and streams (10). The soils are sandy except in either small isolated prairies or river bottoms where heavier soils prevail. Houston, Harris, Liberty, Cham- bers, Jefferson and Orange. 1O F1. Worth. ‘Dallas. 200 miles Texarkana‘ I50 miles Tyler I00 miles ca“ = eaumont ‘Austin Houston. g" ort Arthur I00 miles fiialveston I50 miles Texas City 200 miles Compared to the rest of Texas, this is of minor importance in agricultural productio In 1962, only 6 percent of the area was classif" as cropland, 6 percent as grassland and 77 i=4] I cent of the area was classified as forest. - Cotton, corn and forage crops dominate t“ cropping systems, and a small, widely-distribu _ acreage of peanuts and vegetables is produc The trend in crop production has been sha g downward. Total cropland has decreased only if percent since 1930, but harvested cropland decreased 66 percent. Most of the unharves; cropland is being converted to pasture. The ~ ‘crease in the combine-d cotton and corn acreage has exceeded the decrease in harvested crops. The continuance of these trends is indicated by ‘the fact that cotton acreage has been reduced . by more than 50 percent since 1954. A complete description of land use is presented in Table 8. - Precipitation p The average annual precipitation of the area l for the 5-year period 1958-62 was 50.65 inches, . ‘with a 10W in 1958 of 43.17 inches and a high of 57.88 inches in 1959. The two months with l he lowest rainfall and a relatively low deviation from the mean were March and May, Figure 2. The greatest deviation from the mean occurred ‘in July, September and October. June had the slhighest average monthly rainfall, 5.81 inches, for the 5-year period and September was sec- nd high with 5.69 inches. One of the more avorable periods for recreation, when consider- ng rainfall, appears to be during March, April nd May. ' Temperature , One of the major disadvantages of this area ' or recreational development is the temperature f the summer months. The average tempera- ,ure for July and August is above 80 degrees nd in the upper 70’s in June and September, igure 3. This temperature, together with rather ‘gh relative humidity and somewhat high rain- all can produce a climate which is not very com- titive in relation to many other areas of the» ‘ountry. Unfortunately for this area, the period hen many families take vacations is during the . ummer months. In the fall and spring when _limatic conditions in the area are quite good or outdoor recreation, there is considerable com- tition from other activities such as school and "in making family participation rather diffi- ult. The-se are good reasons why recreation velopers should be looking toward Texans for their business; Texans need facilities which are llose enough for weekend use. This area should Y} highly competitive for Texas users, but it 'll take advanced and imaginative development q attract out-of-state tourists, other than transi- nts, during the hot summer vacation months. l n-Farm Recreation in Economic Area XILII ield Survey e A field survey was conducted by the De- rtment of Agricultural Economics and Socio- igy, Texas A&M University, of all on-farm creational enterprises located in Economic Area .;III in 1961. The purpose of this study was to termine to what {iextent farm resources were ing devoted to recreation. Operators were t ted by consulting the Agricultural Extension rvice, Conservation officers, Soil Conservation rvice, and local sporting goods dealers. All l.» the 43 operators engaged in recreation in the ea were interviewed; of this group only 32 ovided schedules considered useable for this Table 8. Land Use of Agricultural Acreage, and Acres of Federal Land, Urban and Water Areas in Economic Area Xlll, Texas, 1958 Land use Amount of land in different uses Acres Percent Agricultural: Cropland 397,000 6.3 Grassland 366,600 5.8 FOPESI‘ 4,894,100 77.3 Other land In farms 17,900 _3 Not in farms 10,500 2 Non-Agricultural: Federal land 501,700 7.9 Urban areas 120,100 '|_9 Water areas 20,600 _3 TOTAL l 6,293,000 ' 100.00 Source: Soil Conservation Service, “Texas Soil and Water Needs In- vznétgry,” U. S. Department of Agriculture, Temple, Texas, report. The remaining schedules were not in- cluded because sufficient data were not avail- able for the enterprises. Recreational Use of Land Over 38,000 acres of land were, to some de- gree, under multiple use in agricultural and rec- reational enterprises in 1961, Table 9. Of the total acreage, 22,988 acres, or 60 percent, were utilized for hunting. This amount is high be- cause hunting necessarily requires more space than many other recreational activities. The acreage on which fishing sites were located ac- countedfor 7,263 or about 20 percent of the total. An additional 20 percent of the area was used for both hunting and fishing. Number of Users Although the number of acres devoted to hunting far exceeded those devoted to fishing, 87 percent or more than 10,000 annual users en- gaged in fishing, Table 10. Several factors ex- plain this division of user participation. Fishing rights are much more accessible in the area and not as expensive as hunting rights. The quality of fishing in relation to competing areas is better than in hunting. Deer populations are not as large in this area as in some sections of the State, and therefore big game hunting for much of the area is not very important. An- other important factor is the seasonality of hunting in relation to fishing. Fishing is possi- Table 9. Acres of Land Used for Hunting, Fishing and Other Recre- ation by 32 Opeartors in Economic Area Xlll, Texas, 1961 Recreational use Land use for recreation Acres Percent Hunting 22,988 . 60.3 Fishing 7,263 19.1 Both 7,719 20.2 Other 160 .4 TOTAL 38,130 100.0 Source: Survey data 12-county area. ll Rainfall in Inches IO - One Standard Deviation Above § i.‘ E 8 - the Average l " ‘g Monthly Rainfall i ‘x , i: a f j 7 - 5% p. . 4' i. "t. 5 s L_ .§ s U Figure 2. Average,‘ ‘i rainfall and its , i Iglconomic Alreas XII, Source: . . l.” Average Monthly of gomaerce, lwf ' reau, “ imato 1W1 Rcunfc“ Texas.” Data frf lowing locationsz, Conroe, Huntsvill -j. Kirbyville Forest Livingston, Lufkiflgi Dam B, and Wart), 1 One Standard Deviation Below the Average 3 ' Monthly Rainfall ‘éox. f 2 _ \ll| :5 ‘\ "H114" é, I - ‘g5 ll ll ll I l ll l l Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Month ble during most of the year in this area, and also, is better adapted to family participation than hunting. Another fact is that there are gonsiderably more fishermen than hunters in the tate. in this study were generally for 1 required little or no investment, prepar. management on the part of the landoif deer herds and other species of game i ' East Texas, and as the price of hunt’, increases in other hunting areas of due to increased user demand, lando- An investigation of the leasing arrange- ments in the area indicates that in 1961 leasing of hunting rights had not developed to any de- gree, since none of the operators reported day- leasing contracts. Lease Arrangements probably have increasing opportuniti hunting rights in the area. The sale o, rights should become considerably mor in the near future as they account forT percentage of the landowners’ income. i Hunting leases encountered 12 r s; I 10. Recreational Facilities Used and Number of Users of 32 ecreational Enterprises in Economic Area XIII, Texas, 1961 Recreational facility or activity Sportsmen using facilities Number Percent Hunting 183 1.8 Fishing 9,028 87.0 Lots 4 .1 Boats and motors 938 9.0 Cabins 208 2.0 Camp 16 .1 TOTAL 10,377 100.0 1e: Survey data 12-county area. The sale of fishing rights was generally more pted and widespread than those for hunt- . Of the operators that indicated leasing ar- gements, 12 leased by the day, 16 by the year i1 two leased for long-term periods exceeding I year, Table 11. Day-fishing typically sold one dollar per day. Fishing, like hunting, not realized its full potential on a day-lease F and with additional development could be- e a more important producer of farm income. ,tment in Recreational Facilities 1' A summary of costs indicates that nearly ,000 has been invested in commercial on- recreational facilities in the 12-county sur- i’ area. It can be seen in Table 12 that a large unt of the investment can be associated with 7 type of water-based recreation. With the ption of cabins and roads that can be used {either hunting or fishing, little investment been made in support of hunting. Of the $98,058 total reported cost of exist- . recreational facilities, costs for cabins, club jes and swimming pools are the largest 1i These three items alone make up over percent of reported construction costs. The ‘ority of the reported investment is made upport of fishing. A wide range of facilities i needed to effectively utilize water-based rec- tion, whereas, very little investment, other " cabins and roads, is needed to support hunt- activities. g; Another major cost not included in the ‘ve is the cost of ponds and lakes. An ex- ely high variation of costs in relation to ' feet of water existed due to differing physi- I 11. Leasing Arrangements for Hunting and Fishing Rights of perators of Recreational Facilities in Economic Area XIII, Texas, 1961 arrangement Hunting Fishing I’ Number Percent Number Percent 12 40.0 t 1 1 91.7 16 53.3 A‘ term 1 8.3 2 6.7 TOTAL 12 100.0 30 100.0 : Survey data 12-county area. Temperature Degrees Fahrenheit I00 - 9O - 8O — 70 — 60 — 50 — 6mm" "'10 4O " 0°‘ - ' Cage‘ A Average Monthly Maximum Temperature 3o _ B Average Monthly Temperature C Average Monthly Minimum TemPBYQWYQ 2O — l0 — I I i I i I i i I I l #_l Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Month Figure 3. Average monthly temperature, Economic Area XIII, 1958-62. (Source: U. S. Department of Com- merce, Weather Bureau, “Climatological Data, Texas.” Data from the following locations: Bronson, Conroe, Huntsville, Jasper, Kirbyville Forest Service, Livingston, Lufkin, Spurger, Dam B and Warren.) cal characteristics of lake sites. Of 53 lakes, the size ranged from less than an acre-foot to 1,400 acre-feet. Table 13 indicates the number ac- cording to size. The construction cost of these lakes, totaling approximately 6,500 acre-feet, was estimated to be $175,000. This cost cannot be allocated entirely to recreation because a high percentage of the lakes were built primarily for other purposes, e.g., livestock water, irrigation and erosion control. The sale of fishing rights in many cases was of secondary importance. Gross Returns from Recreation Annual gross returns from all reported sources of recreation in the survey area were approximately $34,000. As indicated in Table 14, the largest single item of gross return was for fishing, which amounted to over $16,000. The second largest item was hunting with a return of slightly more than $15,000. Among Table 12. Costs, Types and Number of Recreational Facilities of 32 Operations in Economic Area XIII, Texas, 1961 Number of Types of facilities facilities Cost of facilities Dollars Percent 1 Bath house and toilet 2,500 2.5 2 Boat docks 150 .2 56 Boats 8,161 8.3 5 Boat motors ' 495 .5 14 Cabins 26,045 26.6 Clearing 1,600 1.6 4 Club houses 28,200 28.8 1 1 Grills 51 1 .5 2 Light and water equipment 4,360 4.4 19 Picnic tables 368 .4 Roads 668 .7 1 Swimming pool 25,000 25.5 TOTAL 98,058 100.0 Source: Survey data 12-county area. 13 Table 13. Number and Size of Fishing Lakes Operated by 32 Suppliers of Recreation in Economic Area Xlll, Texas, 1961 Table 15. Investment and Returns From Nine Case Recreational Enterprises in Economic Area Xlll, Texas, Size of lakes Lakes used for fishing Acre-feet Number Percent 0 - 9 9 17.0 10 - 24 6 11.3 35 - over 38 71.7 TOTAL 53 100.0 Source: Survey data 12-county area. the records kep-t by the respondents interviewed, only a fe-W carried actual net income amounts in ways suitable for aggregate calculation of income. Therefore, gross amounts are aggregated for the 12-county area and net returns are given for selected case studies where more detailed data were available. In addition to the income produced by hunt- ing and fishing, $2,500 was grossed from boats, motors, lots, cabins and camping facilities. Re- turns from club houses, swimming pools and some of the cabins were either not available or had not been in operation long enough to yield any revenue. Overall, the ratio of investment in facilities to gross returns from recreation is ap- proximately three to one. Undoubtedly this ratio will be altered substantially as the facilities are- utilized more intensively, as future recreational development takes place and as a greater return is realized from the existing investment. Costs and Returns from Case Studies Nine operators were selected for the pur- pose of case study from the operations reviewed. These were selected on the basis of completeness of data pertaining to both costs and returns. Most of the operations had been in business long __ enough to accrue some returns on the recrea- tional investment. The range of investment was from $620 to- $54,600 and, as indicated in Table 15, returns on the investment ranged from a small loss of $12 up to a return of $7,043. There was con- siderable variation among the returns in relation to the amount invested. At least part of this variation can be explained by differences in management, location, physical resources and availability of capital. Table 14. Gross Returns From Recreational Facilities and Activities Supplied by 32 Operators in Economic Area Xlll, Texas, 1961 Item of Gross returns from recreation recreation Dollars Percent Hunting 15,150 44.6 Fishing 16,269 47.9 Lots 960 2.8 Boats and Motors 938 2.7 Cabins 520 1.5 Camping 160 5 TOTAL 33,997 100.0 Source: Survey data 12-county area. 14 I nvestment in Return ~ Number of case enterprise specific " Dollars Doll - 1 7,600 -1i 2 12,000 1 Q 3 6,000 2 a 4 620 5 2,036 6 6,634 61-, 7 21,746 0 8 8,800 1,9 ,' 9 54,600 7, TOTAL 120,096 ‘ Source: Survey data 12-county area. ‘See case studies. It should be noted at the- outset I deduction has been made for depreciatio i data available for various types of w; facilities is insufficient for the develop depreciation schedules. No attempt W‘ to value the land because of multiple use 1:. rather large variation in land prices both from many undefined factors and fro term ownership of many of the farms. i» cost of the lakes has been entered under; _ investment. Most of the lakes were I multiple use, as previously indicated, ..;,_ fore the recreation enterprise should its share of the cost. Another cost that n" appear is property taxes, which vary cording to counties and locations within Case Number One This is an operation of approxima "l acres. It is located on a farm-to-mark, approximately 6 miles from the neare A somewhat intensive farming operation-l ducted in addition to the recreational en The farm has 60 dairy cows and 6,000 . as the main sources of agricultural inco y’ An investment, expense and incom ment for the recreational enterprise follol f Capital investment in enterprise: Lake (30 surface acres) ____________ __ Cabin (one—3 room) __________________ __ Picnic table (1 concrete) ______________ __ Grill (1) .......................................... __ Tot‘al ............................................ __$§ Annual Income: ' Cabin ($5.00 per night) ________________ __$i; Total -------------------------------------------- Annual expenses: Cabin .......................................... __ Clearing ______________________________________ __ Interest on Investment at 4.5%..-. Return above specified costs ...... .. ' e Number Two This is a beef cattle operation with ap- ximately 40 head 0n 317 acres of land. The j is located about one-half mile from the est town. The recreation operation is in a a good location because the farm is situated ‘a state highway. An investment, expense and_ income state- nt for the recreational enterprise follows: ’ Capital investment in enterprise: Lake (15 surface acres) ................ _.$1,000 Lake (6 surface acres) .................. .- 4,000 Lake (30 surface acres) ................ -_ 7,000 Total __________________________________________ "$12,000 Annual income: ‘ Fishing ($.50 per day) .................. "$1,080 Total ............................................ “$1,030 i. Annual expenses: Road (Gravel) .................... ---------- --$ 14 Mowing levees ................................ -- 50 Weed control, (lilies) -------------------- -- 300 ._ _ Total ............................................ --$ 304 f Return above cash operating costs.---$ 716 Interest on investment at 4.5% ...... .- 540 TReturn above Specified COStS ------------ --$ 170 _, Number Three ‘ This is a membership-type of recreational jiation. In addition to the recreation from the s, the members may also hunt ducks 1n I»: The operation consists of 136 acres of R located approximately one and one-half miles J the nearest town. The primary recreation aged in by members is fishing. An invest- ' t, expense and income statement for the oper- n follows: eilCapital investment in enterprise: Lake (35 surface acres) ---------------- “$0,000 Picnic tables (3) ---------------------------- -- 00 f‘ Total ____________________________________________ “$6,060 Annual income: l Membership fees ---------------------------- --$ 500 Members maintenance .................. -- 250 Total ............................................ --$ 750 _: Annual expenses: I Road ................................................ --$ 75 Clearing .......................................... -- 100 Water .............................................. -- 75 1 Total ............................................ .-$ 250 T Return above cash operating costs-..-$ 500 * Interest on; investment at 4.5% ...... -. 273 _ Return above specified costs ............ --$ 227 i: Number Four {This operation consists of 77 acres of land ed approximately 18 miles from the nearest "i3. The farming operation consists of 18 head cattle and truck gardening. The recrea- tional operation is located almost 4 mile-s off the farm-to-market road. It consists only of fishing and picnic sales. An investment, expense and in- come statement for the recreational operation follows: Capital investment in enterprise: Lake ( 15 surface acres) ________________ __$ 500 Picnic tables (2 wooden 3 x 6 feet) 80 Boats (2 wooden) __________________________ __ 40 Total ............................................ __$ 620 Annual income: Fishing ($1.00 per day) ................ .-$ 280 Total ____________________________________________ __$ 280 Annual Expenses: .. Maintenance __________________________________ __$ 25 Total ____________________________________________ __$ 25 Return above cash operating costs.---$ 255 Interest on investment at 4.5% ........ -- 28 Return above specified costs ____________ __$ 227 Case Number Five This is a beef cattle operation consisting of 267 acres located» approximately 19 miles from the nearest town. It is over one mile off the farm-to-market road. Approximately 3O be-ef cows are maintained. No acreage is cultivated for crops. Owner states that additional picnic areas have been requested by patrons, indicat- ing a somewhat unfulfilled demand. The rec- reation consists of fishing and picnic areas. An investment, expense and income statement connected with the recreation enterprise follows: Capital investment in enterprise: Lake (15 surface acres) ................ "$2,700 Picnic table (1) ______________________________ __ 10 Grill ( 1) __________________________________________ __ 6 Boats (2 wooden) .......................... -- 120 Total ............................................ __$2,836 Annual income: Fishing ($1.00 per day) ................ ..$ 720 Boat's ($1.00 per day) ____________________ __ 120 Total ............................................ _.$ 840 Annual expenses: Boat maintenance __________________________ __$ 10 , Lake fertilizer ________________________________ __ 100 Total ............................................ --$ 110 Return above cash operating costs.---$ 730 Interest on investment at 4.5% ........ .- 128 Return above specified costs ............ .-$ 602 Case Number Six This is a small-scale beef operation consist- ing of a dozen beef cattle and about 310 acres of land. The operation is about 10 miles from the nearest town, and is approximately 4 miles off the farm-to-market road. It is a membership- type recreational operation consisting mainly of fishing, plus. a small amount of hunting. A lighted picnic area is provided in conjunction with the lake. An investment, expense and in- 15 come statement connected with the operation Case Number Eight fellows! _ This is a large beef cattle operation? Capital investment in enterprise; about 14 miles from the nearest town. A i Lake (40 Surface acres) ________________ "$0,000 imately 500 beef eews graze more the Picnie tables (5) ____________________________ __ 13 eeree ef lend- Merrlbere Pa)’, e11 erlnuelj; Lighting 10 use _of the recreational facilities and :0 Boats (4 'g,'l';,';;{{,,"{,}g')' """""""""""" " 471 we 1e sold to the eeeneral pllblle- The v Cattle guard """"""""""" " 140 eerlelete ef a lake and Plerllef-aree- An; """"""""""""""""""" " ment, expense and income statement v2, Total ............................................ --$6,634 the recreational enterprise follows: ‘ Annual income: l Membership fees ($25 per year)_.--$ 500 Hunting (dove and quail, Capital investment in enterprise: ‘A Lake (42 surface acres) ................ Picnic tables (4 iron) .................... .. _ $1 DB1‘ day) ---------------------------------- -- 200 Grills (4) ________________________________________ __ Boats ($1.00 per day) .................... -- 208 Clearing __________________________________________ __ T0tal -------------------------------------------- --$ 963 Tetal ____________________________________________ a. Anne“! expenses? _ Annual income: Picnic tables (paint) .................... .-$ 5 Fishing ($100 per day) ________________ __ Mewlne -------------------------------------------- -- 5° Membership fees ($50 per year).-. a Total _________________________ ................. _-$ 55 Telal _______________________________________ t. '0 Return above cash operating costs._--$ 913 Annual expenses; Interest on investment at 4.5% ........ .. 298 Fertilizer & maintenance ______________ __ Return above specified costs ............ --$ 615 Tera] ____________________________________________ __ Return above cash operating costs.... '= Case Number Seven Interest on investment at 4.5% ...... .. This is a 333-acre operation located only about 3 miles from the nearest town on a farm- to-market road. The pasture acreage is used for a dairy ope-ration. Users of the recreational facilities pay a membership fee in addition to other fees for cabins. The operation is Well developed and apparently additional demand exists for these facilities as the operator states that he has many requests for more cabins. The operator plans considerable improvement in exist- ing facilities. An investment, expense and in- come statement covering the recreational aspect Return above specified costs ............ ‘ Case Number Nine This is a beef cattle operation if . of approximately 300 cows grazed on 1,0 of land. It is located 17 miles from the‘; town. There is a comprehensive membe that covers the right for members to fis boat and use cabins. There are two v“ lakes included in the recreational opera ., cabins and boats are furnished. This e " of the operation follows: Capital investment in enterprise: Lakes (30 surface acres) P. (5 $101195) ---------------------- --$12,0g3 Capital investment in enterprise; ‘er. e“ """""""""""""""""""""""""" " Lake (70 surface acres) ______________ “$12.; -------------------------------------- --$ Lake (lzfl) Surface acres) ____________ __ . Picnic tables (2 concrete) .......... .- 36 Cabins (5) ____________________________________ __ Cléfrivrlgoden’ 31/? X 6 feet) ---------- " 23g Boats (2 aluminum, 4 wooden)", f Water (well, pipe, pump, fixtures) 1,500 A nTzelterllc-égg ---------------------------------- "5 G '1] 5 ______________________________________ __ 200 n 11 1 5 . Beet: l2)aluminum, 7 wooden)._.- 1,1.40 Membership fee ($10000) illellld, Motors (2 electric, 3 gasoline)..- 495 glshéflg - Club house ...................................... -- 5,000 ‘m mg B t' Total .......................................... .-$21,746 cgfiilllg ,; , Annual income: Total __________________________________________ __$¢ Membership fefis per year).-$ Annual expenses: LOtS .............................................. .. Maintenance; ' Cabin ($20.00 per month) .......... -. 240 Lakes & cabins ______________________ __ Fishing ($100 per day) ______________ _- 30 Boats ________________________________________ __ n; Total .......................................... -.$ 1,840 Total .......................................... ..s> Return above cash operating costs..$ 1,840 Return above (lash Operating ¢0St8..$0§f Int'erest on Investment at 4.5% ...... -- 978 Interest on investment at 4.5% ...... Return above specified costs ........ -.$ 862 Return above specified costs __________ 16 has the largest investment and the l l’ come of the operations considered. Air ment, expense and income statement y“? the recreational operation follows: " X From these case studies it is possible to ualize some of the investments in facilities t are required when developing a small lake commercial recreation. However, most of the ‘rations, at best, offer little more than a bare é imum of facilities. Expenses associated with _ese enterprises were generally low and most l» not been in business long enough to accrue sonable maintenance costs. Even with the atively low expenses, most of the operations I» not show a very high return on investment. ese results are comparable to studies that have done in other states. i-Some Factors To Be Considered By " Potential Recreation Suppliers The natural resources found in this area of Texas and their location with respect to l-ge centers of population constitute important tors favoring the development of this area v a major supplier of outdoor recreation in as. As indicated by the preceding study, l- development of recreational facilities is in ’ early stage and virtually no development ,= occurred in relation to the existing potential. 's, of course, does not mean that all such erprises will be successful and that the ap- ation of sound management principles will jf> be required. As recreational activities and ilities are developed in increasing quantities, q will competition increase and operating ef- iency become increasingly important. It will oubtedly be a long time before there is a _= lus supply of outdoor recreation; however,- {ividual situations will develop where producers i. that they are unable to market what they ve produced. i". Before engaging in the recreation business, sarmer or rancher should review the following tions: What are your managerial qualifications? y, The human factor may be most important the whole operation. The operator must be iiness oriented and must have an interest in ling with the public. He probably should be e combination of a successful farmer, motel rator, general businessman and sportsman. ese managerial qualities may not be found all farmers that have resources suitable for reational use. Some types of recreational enterprises are H to require long hours, especially on week- s when most people have an opportunity to age in recreation. Many operations are going depend on family labor and the whole family 'uld be fullylff-aware of what is involved. In Q y cases, recreation will be only one enter- i}; in the farming operation and therefore ‘j require the re-allocation of farm resources. _.= adjustment in resources may result in a uced net income in the short run, and this uld be considered in planning. It should also noted that the returns from existing recrea- tional enterprises in the area are relatively low and that considerable managerial ability will be required to operate a profitable recreation busi- ness. 2. What do you know about the various types of farm-supplied recreation? In this business the supplier not only has to worry about production but in most cases must deal directly with the consumer without the as- sistance of a marketing agency. Before invest- ing heavily in some phase of recreation the pros- p-ective operator should make sure that he under- stands all of the ramifications of such an under- taking. For example, if an enterprise involving a combination of such activities as camping, swimming, picnicking, fishing and boating were being considered, certainly the farmer would do well to take an extended camping-fishing trip. This would provide actual experience as a par- ticipant and readily point out some of the prob- lems and needs of the outdoorsmen. From the production side, it will illustrate the resources required in terms of management, labor, land and capital. 3. What is your capital position? In many cases the farmer will want to de- velop his facilities gradually, gaining experience over time. However, plans for a fully develop-ed operation should be laid out at the beginning; these of course can be altered as the need arises. The operator should know if he can obtain suf- ficient financing for expansion that will permit him to develop his resources to a profitable oper- ating level. Credit restrictions can be severe enough to preclude the efficient utilization of resources. 4. What are the physical resources of your farm or ranch? Sufficient acreage should be available to support any sustained activities and to justify investment in facilities. Water is a very import- ant resource. The quantity and type, of course, will depend on the type of recreation. However, there is considerable evidence that people strongly prefer water-based activities. Trees and cover provide a great amount of aesthetic value to an area plus providing shade and privacy for outdoor users. Certain types of vegetation can provide food and shelter for many species of game; however, because a farm has beautiful trees does not provide any assurance that there will be an abundance of game for hunt- ing. The quantity of game will depend not only on management practices of the individual land- owner, but also on the management practices used in the area. This is especially true in the case of deer. 5. Are you aware of the liability risks incurred when, for a fee, you transfer part of your property rights for recreational use? Regular farm liability insurance, in most cases, does not cover people who have paid a fee 17 to use recreational facilities. The operator should consult his attorney and insurance agent to en- sure adequate insurance coverage and to deter- mine what can be done to limit liability. Insur- ance protection on some types of recreational activities is quite expensive and might cause the operator to exclude certain types of activities from the operation (11). Liability risks are a very important aspect of any recreational bus- iness and should not be overlooked by landowners. 6. Where is your farm located in relation to potential buyers of recreation? Location is a very critical factor. A de- velopment located near a major highway where people unfamiliar with the area can quickly locate it has a definite advantage over operations situ- ated in hard-to-find areas with poor roads. It isiassumed that much of the business in this area will come from weekend users that live within a maximum of Z-hours driving distance. These people like to get to the recreation areas as quickly as possible. Moreover, the return trip- is probably even more important. in that if the negative experience of a long difficult drive is too great there is little chance for frequent re- turn visits. For day use, for example picnics, a 30 to ‘GO-minute drive is considered to be about the maximum time users will travel enroute to facilities. 7. What is the attitude of the community toward recreation development and toward the people that come to buy the recreation? Local residents can be very helpful in adver- tising facilities and directing visitors to the vari- ous developments. Local businesses in turn stand to benefit from selling supplies and various serv- ices to the non-residents, all of which tends to- benefit the local economy. However, in some localities the attitudes of local residents toward visitors may tend to discourage “strangers” from using an area for recreation. The local chamber of commerce, civic groups and other interested groups and individuals can do much to present a desirable image to visitors and also to explain the economic and social bene- fits to be derived by the residents of the com- munity from new recreational enterprises that utilize valuable community and private resources. Types of Recreation Several types of recreational enterprises appear to be suited for this area of East Texas when considered from the standpoint of avail- able land and water resources and their proxi- mity to the potential demands of the nearby centers of population. Not all outdoor recreational activities and supporting facilities are discussed in this section; only those which appear to have the greatest potential from the standpoint of resources and demand and for which some data were available are included. Others having an undetermined 18 potential are vacation farms, minnow float trips, summer camps, working 1 ff nature trails. ‘ . Based on recreation trends in theft types of hunting and fishing activities” in strong demand, especially fresh Wa w National data on trends also indicate forms of water-based recreation Ijare =» popular, plus activities like camping, w; hiking, nature trails and horseback rip’, Hunting I? Various species of game such as if and fox squirrels, mourning doves, and turkeys are found in this area of However, in many parts sufficient ,- of game are not available for the deve ‘I widespread commercialized hunting. - the development of leasing arrange marketing systems has not generall. the magnitude of economic importan j occurred in other areas, as in the ‘q hunting in the Edward’s Plateau and ing in many of the coastal areas. In a; - ties deer are available in sufficient-y», so as to provide the resource base for? deer hunting, but in other counties tunity is relatively limited. Additional reasons for the slow - velopment of commercialized hunti Texas were presented as follows in publication “Build East Texas” (13). l “The tradition of free» hunting »_ lands appears to be deeply entrencli sociology of hunters and land opera Q Texas. This tradition has hindered ti ment of the hunting-lease system in v Commercialization of wildlife resourc parts of the State has provided a powl lus to encouragement of large deer he ~_;i_ “Land units generally are sm "" Texas, and land operators have adopt deer management programs, b, felt they would have little control population of deer and that an uncoo lic would harvest animals from the] ment programs. i‘ “Also, free ranging or unconlr, have been responsible for the fail, brood stock to increase in some = =" Texas. Deer are chased, harassed}: killed by dogs allowed to roam ati; of dogs is an important hunting meth" ing deer in some areas of East use is detrimental to deer herds ' especially destructive during the la A‘ spring when female deer are pregnant.» This case is further substant’ j collected in the field survey of 1961,.- cated that relatively few operators ",1 hunting rights. Those who were sel rights were doing so under long- ments. There were no intensive day; t’ , » tgements reported. Day leasing will generally ‘ult in higher returns and more intensive use "sources but requires more labor and manage- t and perhaps a higher investment in facili- ; and equipment. Many operators prefer er term leases where limited quantities of _ e are available because a relatively small ount of labor, management and investment is uired. x In almost all sections game numbers could increased sufficiently for hunting if proper agement practices were employed. In many j ~ of East Texas there may be a shortage- plants that provide quality winter forage for r, particularly where livestock are wintered frangeland. Generally, the best winter forage l, ts for deer are the shrubs and small trees i“ are also consumed by livestock (14). Multiple use of farm resources for timber, tock and game production would probably j. ire some adjustment in all enterprises. Under "(intensive management program the different rprises would be competing for many of p. same resources. This adjustment may re- j in a decrease in returns in the short run f this is a factor to be considered by the land- er. < Game other than deer have some economic rtance in East Texas. Both grey and fox jrrels abound where there are sufficient nest 2-: and mast-producing trees. In many cases, agement of timber and livestock with con- i. being given to the production of deer will favor squirrels (15). At present, more time pent in the aggregate in hunting squirrels i in hunting deer in East Texas. Moreover, er good management, squirrels often can be ted rather intensively without detriment to resource. Mourning doves are also common in the area, ough the abundance of surface water often rses them so much that the popular “water- , shooting” of the species cannot generally racticed very successfully. Many East Texas .: are sandy and the simplest disturbance of " will foster luxurious growths of Croton other weeds that produce seeds highly sought oves (16). Judicious culture of these weeds nd small, open waters probably would do h to improve dove hunting. iBobwhite quail is a relatively stable wildlife . in East Texas, but the shift from cash crops ‘l: geland and timber production has reduced A numbers over most of the area (17). Inten- (management of land for joint production of I1 and range aior timber hardly seems feasible Luse these birds do best in areas where dis- 3': soils are allowed to produce annual weeds. situation was common in much of East 6:; 15 to 20 years ago when small, cash crop .- were common and fields lay fallow from to spring. However, limited management to ’ - a continuing low number of quail may give additional hunting features to an overall hunting lease contract. Suggested quail manage- ment practices are available from the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (18). Wild turkeys can be produced in this area, although» they have not been too successful in most cases. The Texas Parks and Wildlife De- partment indicates that restocking should be done only with wild turkeys from the pine forest regions of the Southern United States and not from Southwest Texas (19). Even these birds have not proved highly successful in East Texas. The hunting of ducks and geese in the area has a limited potential except on the rather large reservoirs. The sale of small-game hunt- ing rights is an area which should have some potential, especially since there are more small- game hunters than waterfowl and big-game hunt- ers in the State. Small-game hunting was esti- mated to have accounted for nearly 60 percent of all hunting in Texas in 1960. In the past, small-game hunting has not been given much consideration in leasing arrangements but un- doubtedly will be considered a more valuable game resource in the future. Shooting Resorts Shooting resorts are gaining in popularity in Texas as in other states where there are large concentrations of people. Shooting resorts are defined by law in Article 908 as amended in 1959, “As an area of not less than six hundred (600) acres nor more than two thousand (2000) acres, . that are contiguous to each other on which pen- raised fowls and /or imported game birds, banded and marked in accordance with the provisions of this Act, are released to provide hunting for members or guests authorized by the hunting laws of this state.” (20). Anyone considering a shooting resort operation should certainly con- tact the Parks and Wildlife Department of the State for a complete set of regulations. The owner or operator of the shooting resort is required to buy a license costing $10.00; a $2.00 fee is required of game breeders. Breeders of commercial game birds are required to pay $25.00 for a permit. These licenses are discussed in “Hunting in Texas 1963-64,” Parks and Wild- life Department, Austin, Texas. Hunters using a shooting resort are required to have a valid hunting license. Non-residents may obtain a license for use on State-licensed shooting resorts for the sum of $3.15. This license is valid during the resort season from October 1 to April 1 and therefore out-of-state, guests can make» use of Texas shooting resorts for a nominal fee. Before engaging in the shooting resort busi- ness the operator should be thoroughly familiar with what is involved. This is a very intensive type of operation and will involve management experience as well as compliance with regulations set forth in governing these operations. It is definitely not the kind of business every- one can operate profitably. The number of shoot- l9 ing resorts that go out of business each year gives some indication of the risk involved. The prospective operator will do Well to visit several shooting resorts, using their facili- ties as a hunter and not just as a visitor. This will provide some insight into the investment and management required in such a business. The following are some of the questions that should be considered when undertaking a shoot- ing preserve. 1. What types of game should be provided for hunting? Quail, chukar and pheasant are the game birds generally offered in Texas shooting resorts. A few preserves are providing duck hunting. A new operator not only has to decide on the type of game for hunting, but needs to decide on whether he will produce his own game birds or buy them from commercial game breeders. In the early phases, a new operator may choose to offer only one species of game bird and to produce on a limited basis until sufficient exper- ience is developed to carry on multiple species production and hunting. The risk of disease is rather high in producing game birds. Just pro- ducing live birds is not enough; the birds must be healthy, and properly conditioned to be good flyers so that they not only provide sporting shots but make good trophies and provide good meat. In addition to producing game birds, there are problems of maintaining the proper vegetation that will withstand heavy hunting for 6 months and at the same time provide cover. Consider- able effort must be made to develop cover that will cause the birds to hold rather than run so the hunter can get in close for the flush (21). 2. What services should be made available for sportsmen? Several items are rather basic to all shoot- ing preserves. Guides and dogs are two items which nearly all resorts have available and a few require the hunters to use them. The hunter may provide his own dog or use one be- longing to the resort. Dog kennels are generally available and in some cases the resort will board dogs and even train them. Guns are rarely provided by the resort, al- though some sell ammunition, usually only as service to the hunter and not as a profit-making part of the business. Shooting resorts generally do not get into the sporting goods business but rely on local merchants to supply the needs of their hunters. Some shooting resorts have restaurant and lodging facilities while others may rely on motels and restaurants in neighboring areas to supply these facilities. In some cases picnic areas and camping facilities are available. Air strips may be provided for those hunters that wish to fly in, others provide transportation to and from nearby airports. Skeet ranges may be available for hunters that want to “warm up” before going to the 20 field. This is an advantage to the opera I guarantees kills because misses and birds that cannot be found reduce profi Facilities will generally have to be for cleaning and processing game. Hun _ generally want their game processed bef, turning home or may ask that it be c when processed. “ i 3. How should game birds be marketed There are several methods being ,_ shooting resorts in Texas. Some o_ charge a fixed amount per hunter and? fee for each bird released. A few o guarantee a specified kill, although this is not very common. Another version; above method is to charge a flat fee peri which permits the hunter to have a 'i number of birds released, for example, a or 6 chukar, or 4 pheasant. If the hunt to shoot more than the minimum rel may purchase the release of additional _ a per-bird basis. Some resorts just flat rate per bird released with no =~‘_ charge-s. In some cases guides and o; included in the above rates; in other! and dog services are sold together or “g; according to the hunters’ preference. " There are several other factors to»; sidered in shooting resort development. , tising is important in attracting prospec ’ tomers. Without a good promotional pr - will be difficult to attract sufficient ' of hunters for a profitable business. _ will partially determine the type of ad required. This discussion of shootingfl is not a complete critique of all of the 7 tions of the business, but is included tor-i general overview of some of the face " business. It is a complex business a w, not be undertaken without a full unde of what is involved. Fishing This area of East Texas offers a rat variety of fish to the sport fisherma ‘ species which have varying degrees of i importance are the largemouth bass, W 3; sunfish, crappie, catfish, buffalo and ' In the area are several major st have limited importance as suppliers fish. Streams, of course, do not lendt T to private management. Also, pollu A various sources and turbidity are prob considered from the standpoint of fisj: tion (22). Generally, catfish, buffalo’, account for most of the fishing in the It is difficult to assess the economic u? of these streams for fishing. Major reservoirs provide a Wide ",1 fishing. Predominant species in these 1f crappie, largemouth bass, white bas‘? sunfish, buffalo and carp. While man Q areas are very popular and supply A quantities of fishing and other recreaw.‘ “experienced” fisherman. t problems are also involved. They are so pge that it is difficult to operate them under trolled fish management programs. Fertility the water in some of these lakes tends to i inish over time and is accompanied by a de- w‘ in the number of game fish and an in- in rough fish (23). Another problem re- ts from multiple use within the area of recrea- fn, i.e., fishing and water skiing tend to con- ‘t. Eventually use-zoning restrictions will bably have to be applied to these bodies of Zter. However, the fact that these are large ies of fresh water that have beautiful loca- * s provides most of the necessary ingredients water-based recreation. They undoubtedly , continue to be major recreational attractions Ethe entire area and are capable of supplying it quantities of many types of outdoor recrea- I ,4 l ¢ . a f Another supplier of sport fishing in East is the farm pond. Some combination of ' or more of the following species can be ,ked in these small lakes for fishing: large- ith bass, redear sunfish, crappie, channel cat- ,blue catfish, and flathead catfish. Generally Figure 4. Small lakes, if properly stocked and managed, provide excellent fishing for both the “inexperienced” the topography, climate and vegetation of the are-a produce a suitable environment for these small lakes. If properly developed and managed these ponds can provide the foundation for many water-based farm-produced recreational activities, Figure 4. If fishing rights are to be sold, ponds should be developed so that efficient management prac- tices can be applied. Unfortunately, due to poor management practices or low returns from the sale of fishing rights many landowners sell fish- ing rights, but with few fish that can be caught by the average fisherman. This situation does not ensure the steady and continuous demand of returning customers that is necessary if the operation is to be profitable. A pond that is either too small, too large, or is improperly de- signed, so that controlled stocking, maintenance of the desired balance of species of fish, fertiliza- tion and vegetation control can not be accom- plished is of little value to a farm recreational enterprise. Under some management programs a pond should produce between 100 and 400 pounds of fish per acre per year. Generally, ponds should not be less than 3 acres or larger than 2O 21 84 Figure 5. Tent camping is a very pleasurable family experience when done in a clean, improved campsite under large shade trees. acres for efficient management (24). This size limitation, of course, is arbitrary and circum- stances might justify either a larger 0r smaller pond than suggested. In lakes under intensive management pro- grams involving direct feeding of fish, produc- tion costs may be so high as to require Ways, other than day leases, for marketing fish. In some states operators of recreational areas sell fishing on the basis of pounds caught, but in Texas the sale of bass, crappie or White perch is prohibited in all counties. Per-pound or per- fish sale of fresh water fish species, other than those mentioned above, is not prohibited in most of the counties in Economic Area XIII. The exception is Sabine County Where the sale of fish from waters other than the Sabine River is prohibited (25). For intensive fish production and marketing, recreation operators will have to explore the potential for commercial production and sale of catfish and rough fish — shad, carp, suckers, gar and buffalo, where their sale is not prohibited. Fresh water fishing is one of the most popular outdoor sports in the State. Nearly 2 million people did some fresh water fishing in 1960 and spent over $175 million on equipment, travel fees, etc. The average expenditure of each sportsman doing some fresh water fishing Was over $90. Since there is so much interest in fresh water fishing it would appear that this is one phase of recreation that should be incor- porated into a farm recreational operation. Campgrounds and Supporting Facilities and Activities The resources of Economic Area XIII seem to be especially well suited for the development of multiple-activity recreational enterprises. Camp- ing, picniking, swimming and boating are activi- ties that complement a fishing enterprise. Re- sults of the field survey indicate that there is a large number of small lakes in the area that could be managed for sport-fish production and that some of the lakes under extensive manage- ment programs are being used rather intensively at the present time for fishing. In 1961, 32 operators reported that nearly 10,000 sportsmen 22 3:! P. j ._;_ t, fished in their lakes during that year. study concluded, “Campers, when comff noncamping outdoor recreation enthusf more active participants in all outdoor ‘p activities, including picnicking, fishin ming, boating, hiking, and hunting. I gests that all kinds of outdoor recreati‘ ties will be used if available near;.. cam' " Proximity to water sport facilities, for if,“ may be an important factor to conside ning the location of additional areas.” These small fishing lakes providel around which such activities as campi picnicking, boating and swimming canj Such an enterprise can be expanded i additional features such as horseba, nature trails and shooting ranges. Int? of recreational development, the wider7 of activities, the larger will be the ma which customers can be drawn. Thi that the land area is adequate for suff, tribution of activities so that use-co 7 not arise. Crowding is a common f? public developments where adequate l. exist but where it is difficult to limit i, of users of facilities. A private should be able to not only distribute f = I also control intensity of use to suit . preferences. If the private develo . not provide services and facilities c effectively, they Will have difficulty, .' competitive With public developments a I facilities. Even With the many factors fag. door recreational enterprises in this a i‘ owner should certainly consider very? the questions set forth under the tion entitled, “Some Factors to Be Co Potential Recreation Producers.” There are basically two groups that landowners Will Want to considen; veloping a campground. These grou “vacation” camper and the “weekendtl Vacation campers probably will n,‘ as important in the near future from}? point of business as Will the weeke‘ However, during the tourist seaso ments on major highways should siderable business from transient vaca are looking for places to camp govern‘ 5. As the resources of this area of‘, are developed, the area will begin to a tion tourists from within Texas and!’ states. The number of tourists att area Will depend on the rate of dev recreation facilities and its competi in relation to other areas with simil" in neighboring states. Weekend campers will undoub the strongest demand now and for f to come. As stated previously, the = ? location. Figure 6. Trees, water and clean facilities provide ideal camping and picnic sites. lly located for Weekend use in relation to eral metropolitan population centers. Camping facilities required to meet the needs both the vacation and Weekend camper are very different. The average camper in Pher group will prefer to have such facilities as i: or trailer sites, picnic tables, grills, drinking ter, showers and flush toilets, Figure 6 (27). , trical outlets, water and sewer hookups are oirable for sportsmen that own pickup campers i» camping trailers, Figure 7. This is especi- true if they plan to spend several days in Laundry facilities either at the pground or in a nearby town can be an asset, l: re 8. A small playground will provide many -: igure 7. Owners of travel 51ers and pickup campers can V electricity, running water and per connections at their camp- .4, hours of enjoyment for small children and does not add greatly to the investment. With these basic facilities the camper has more time to participate in other recreation activities and to enjoy the beauty of the out- doors. This is especially true for families with children. Many campers indicate that they want to “rough it,” and some do. Nevertheless, for the average camper who is accustomed to the luxuries provided by a high standard of living, roughing over a very long period becomes more work than pleasure. Most campers like the natural features of the outdoors, but will place a premium on those operations that provide potablewater supplies, sanitary facilities, show- Hand laundry facilities 0r automatic washers are of special importance to vacation campers if facilities are not readily available in nearby towns. Figure 8. ers, tables, grills, electricity, and garbage recept- acles, Figure 9. Swimming is another attraction that should not be overlooked, especially in an area with a climate as warm as that of East Texas. Farm producers of recreation generally will not be able to afford to incur a large investment in swimming facilities due to the relatively low return. They will probably want to zone an area of the fishing lake or stream for swimming. This area can be improved somewhat for swim- ming by adding a small sand beach and a swim- ming dock. The swimming facilities can be offered as a free attraction with no additional charge for use in the same manner as playgrounds and other facilities, Figure 10. If a swimming pool is constructed and swimming permits sold to the public, or a swimming area provided, com- pliance with state health laws is required. In all cases the operator should be familiar with these publications: “Texas Sanitation and Health Protection Law” and “Minimum Standards for Public Bathing Places.” (28). Also, all possible safety precautions should be taken to prevent accidents and the possibility of liability claims. Picnic facilities can add to the income of the operation if located close enough to population centers. Picnickers will seldom drive more than 30 to 60 minutes to use this type of facility, Figure 11. 24 Common picnic facilities needed are grills, drinking water, toilets - preferably type in this climate, garbage receptacles, and; lighting. A shelter to accommodate larger 1%; may be desirable in areas where there is s, ent demand. A small playground can add i to both a picnic and camping facility. the camping families have children, as o! by a recent survey; the average camping i; had 2.3 children, and therefore some acti for all members of the family would be desirable (29). Charges for campground facilities avj $1.50 to $2.50 per night per car or ca is Some operators quote special weekly rate also differentiate according to facilities 0 at different campsites. Picnic facilities lease for about $1. day. Some operators charge a per-person i The East Texas survey indicated that rights were normally sold for $1.00 per I per day. Where boats were available theyg normally rented for $1.00 per day. In somefj this fee included oars and life preservers. The relatively low rates that are custo charged for the use of farm-produced recr a should indicate that considerable volume will have to be obtained before the returns»; such an operation can be very great. An for some farm-produced commodities co] , developed by the operator as an additional of income. Also, some camp supplies stocked at a home-operated concession st i; fishing is available, the operator may 1. retail bait to his customers. i; Promotion of a multiple-activity recr :3 enterprise is extremely important. potential users know where and how the development is mandatory, as well as a ing of what facilities and activities are Figure 12. Whenever possible, charges l be given for the various types of recreatio. Figure 9. Clean comfort stations with hot running water, showers and flush toilets are tinuously when available and are strongly campers. p; Figure 10. Swimming areas in small lakes are very popular with families with children. Almost all campers and picnickers prefer rec- reational areas having swimming facilities. , The following are some of the means avail- tories have become very popular with campers ble for promoting recreational enterprises: and certainly should provide good advertisement among potential users. To obtain a listing Write 1. Have a colorful brochure printed for dis- to some of the following: 'bution, providing information on available tivities, facilities, and the corresponding rates. a. AAA Campground Directory good map providing clear and concise directions Ameriean Automobile Assoeiation the development should be included. 1712 G, street 2. Facilities can be listed With the various Washmgtm‘ 6’ D- C- “portsmen’s clubs and camping associations in b, Campgrgund Atlas he State. Alpine Geographical Press Box 246, Station A 3. To get nation-Wide coverage, there are» , , , Champalgn, Illinois fveral campground directories which list both 'vate and public campgrounds. These direc- Figure 11. Picnic areas are heavily used during the Figure 12. Neat directional signs give campers and 'mmer months. They should be located in shaded areas picnickers a good initial impression of an area and provide preferably near a lake or stream. valuable information. 25 c. Campground Guide Campgrounds Unlimited Blue Rapids, Kansas d. Campground Guide Rand McNally and Company Box 7600 Chicago 80, Illinois e. Camping Maps U.S.A. Box 862 Upper Montclair, New Jersey 4. Advertisements can be listed in local newspapers and in those metropolitan newspapers within a 200-mile radius. 5. Road signs on major highways can at- tract business and give directions. 6. Hunting and fishing guides are now being published in Texas and nearby states. .A listing in these publications should get wide distribution throughout the State and other areas. Two of the guides are: Southern AngleWs and Hunters Guide P. O. Box 117, Albert Pike Station Hot Springs, Arkansas Texas H untefs Guide P. O. Box 6701 Dallas 19, Texas In selecting a method of advertising, the operator is going to have to be very careful to minimize costs. As indicated before, the rec- reational enterprises discussed here are rela- tively low return types of activities and thus the operator will have to be very selective in choosing effective, low cost methods of promotion. Sources of Assistance . A rather complete bibliography has been developed pertaining to recreational materials and related subjects. Most of these publications are available from the various sources at a rela- tively low cost and the county agricultural agent can provide many of them at no cost. Technical Assistance For technical assistance on specific prob- lems concerning the development, planning and operation of farm recreational enterprises in Texas the following are some of the individuals or agencies that can be contacted: a. Private firms specializing in recreational development b. County Agricultural Agent c. County Health Officer Work Unit‘ Conservationist Soil Conservation Service e. Soil Conservation Service U. S. Department of Agriculture P. O. Box 648 Temple, Texas 26 f. Texas Agricultural Extension Texas A&M University i College Station, Texas - ’ g. Texas Agricultural Experiment Texas A&M University College Station, Texas h. Texas Parks and Wildlife Depart, John Reagan Building l: ~l Austin, Texas i. Texas State Department of H : _ Austin 1, Texas Financial Assistance Financial assistance for farm recr‘ velopment is available, in many cases, V; various lending agencies normally suppl cultural credit. Some of these agencies 1 a. Local banks b. Insurance companies _ .1 c. Farmers Home Administration Camping Magazines Camping magazines provide some f, tion on recreational operations and cons; ferences. Some of these magazines c listings of recreational facilities. A ing magazines are: a. “Better Camping” 1027 North Seventh St. Milwaukee 3, Wisconsin b. “Camping Guide” 215 Park Avenue South New York, New York Sportsmen’s Clubs and Camping Associ; Some sportsmen’s clubs and campi tions assist operators in developing an, ing recreational enterprises. Some of tli, zations are: a. Sportsmen’s Clubs of Texas, I 1011 San Jacinto Austin 1, Texas b. American Camping Associatio Bradford Woods " Mart'insville, Indiana c. National Campers and Hikers Association, Inc. » 2919 West Oklahoma Avenue Milwaukee e15, Wisconsin Listing of the private organizatio lications referred to in this publication._ with the understanding that it does not? endorsement, but only provides info does not imply that all such organizatio, lications are named herein. .~,§ . t”, i, >4.‘ Selected References ' eral t! en, C. A., “Types of Farming in Texas,” Texas Agri- 1 cultural Experiment Station, B-964, College Station, » Texas, 1960. ieau of Census, “United States Census of Population, , 1960, Texas,” Washington, D.C., 20402: Government » Printing Office, 1961. i est Service, “Forests of East Texas, 1953-55,” Forest a Survey Release 77, Southern Forest Experiment Sta- tion, U. S. Department of Agriculture, New Orleans, Louisiana, 1956. _ banek, R. L., “A Decade of Population Change in Texas,” Texas Agricultural Experiment Station and Texas Agricultural Extension Service, B-1000, Col- ' lege Station, Texas, 1963. Conservation Service, “Texas Soil and Water Con- j» servation Needs Inventory,” U. S. Department of _~ Agriculture, Temple, Texas, 1962. i as Forest Service, “Forest Resources of East Texas -- _i Current and Future,” Texas A&M University, C-80, g College Station, Texas, 1963. l». Forest Service, “Tree Regions of Texas,” Texas , A&M University, College Station, Texas, 1962. itdoor Recreation Studies and Reports p , Ronald and Frank Miller, “Contributions of Tourist n, Trade to Incomes of People in Missouri Ozarks,” Agri- '5 cultural Experiment Station, University of Missouri, i B-799, Columbia, Missouri, 1962. _, Ronald and Frank Miller, “Where Ozark Tourists i Come From and Their Impact on Local Economy,” Agricultural Experiment Station, University of Miss- ; ouri, B-790, Columbia, Missouri, 1962. J au of Census, “Second Texas Survey of Fishing and j Hunting,” U. S. Department of Commerce, prepared : for Texas Game and Fish Commission, Austin, Texas, . 1961. V. ens Committee for the Outdoor Recreation Resources i: Review Commission Report, “Action for Outdoor Rec- f reation for America,” 1001 Connecticut Avenue, Wash- ington, D.C., 20036. t, en, William F., Thomas M. Stockdale, and Ralph W. "Moore, “Planning Guide -- Outdoor Recreation Facili- " ties,” Cooperative Extension Service, Ohio State Uni- l versity, B-441, Columbus, Ohio, 1963. sley, S-D Surveys, Inc., “Survey of Hunters and Fish- _ermen,” prepared for Texas Game and Fish Com- , mission, Austin, Texas, 1956. f est Service, “Camping,” U. S. Department of Agri- culture, PA-502, Washington, D.C., 20402: Govern- ‘g ment Printing Office, 1962. st Service, “Forest Recreation for Profit,” Agricul- étural Information Bulletin 265, U. S. Department of ‘rAgriculture, Washington, D.C., 20402: Government ' Printing Office, 1962. '- r, John H., “The Private Outdoor Recreation Indus- “T try in Berkshire, Hampshire, and Hampden Counties, “ 1962,” Parts I and II, Cooperative Extension Service ' and Experiment Station, University of Massachusetts, f Publication 393, Amherst, Massachusetts, 1963. “ mb, Carl J, Howard E. Conklin, and Fred E. Winch, ; “Opportunities for Private Campgrounds as an Alter- :native Use of Land,” Agricultural Extension Service, a Virginia Polytechnic Institute, C-792, Blacksburg, “Virginia, 1963. pan, Max F., “Opportunities for Improving Rural-Fam- ‘ily Income Through Recreation Enterprises,” Agri- 5 cultural Experiment Station, University of Arkansas iand Economics Research Service, U. S. Department of Agriculture, B-673, Fayetteville, Arkansas, 1963. Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission, “Par- ticipation in Outdoor Recreation: Factors Affecting Demand Among American Adults,” Report 20, Wash- ington, D.C., 20402: Government Printing Office, 1962. Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission, “Out- door Recreation for America,” Washington, D. C., 20402: Government Printing Office, 1962. Taves, Marvin and William Hathaway, Gordon Bultena, “Canoe County Vacationers,” Agricultural Experi- ment Station, University of Minnesota, Miscellaneous Report 39, Minneapolis, Minnesota, 1960. U. S. Department of Agriculture, “Rural Recreation — New Opportunities on Private Land,” MP-930, Wash- ington, D.C., 20402: Government Printing Office, 1963. U. S. Department of Agriculture, “Rural Recreation Enterprises for Profit,” Agricultural Information B-277, Washington, D.C., 20402: Government Print- ing Office, 1963. Vacation Farms Davis, Jeanne M., “Farm Vacations in East Central Ohio,” Economic Research Service, U. S. Department of Agriculture, ERS-113, Washington, D.C., 20402: Government Printing Office, 1963. Federal Extension Service, “So You’re Planning a Vaca- tion Farm Business,” U. S. Department of Agricul- ture, PA-604, Washington, D.C., 20402: Government Printing Office, 1963. Harrell, DeWitt, “Reap Additional Dollars by Accom- modating Vacationers,” Cooperative Extension Serv- ice, University of Georgia, C-516, Athens, Georgia, 1963. Regnier, E. H., “Vacation Project,” Agricultural Exten- sion Service, University of Illinois, C-848, Urbana, Illinois, 1962. Facilities Allen, W. S., “Let’s Build a Picnic Table,” Texas Agricul- tural Extension Service, L-215, College Station, Texas. Forest Service, “Working Drawings of Basic Facilities For Campground Development,” U. S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Information B-264, Wash- ington, D.C., 1963. Farm Management, Insurance and Credit Botts, Ralph R., “Insurance Facts for Farmers,” U. S. De- partment of Agriculture, Farmers’ B-2137, Washing- ton, D.C., 20402: Government Printing Office, 1963. Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, “Some Federal Programs of Assistance in Outdoor Recreation,” U. S. Depart- ment of Interior, Washington 25, D.C. Crews, John F. and Ronald Bird, “Reducing Liability Risks in Farm Recreational Enterprises,” Missouri Agricul- tural Experiment Station B-801, Columbia, Missouri, 1963. Farmers Home Administration, “Loans to Family Farmers for Recreation Enterprises,” U. S. Department of Agriculture, PA-563, Washington 25, D.C., 1963. Farmers Home Administration, “Loans to Rural Groups,” U. S. Department of Agriculture, PA-560, Washing- ton 25, D.C., 1963. Internal Revenue Service, “Farmer’s Tax Guide,” U. S. Treasury Department, Publication 225, Washington, D.C., 20402: Government Printing Office, 1964. Kennedy, Rex P., “A Guide for Better Crop Budgeting and Farm Financial Planning,” Texas Agricultural Experi- ment Station, College Station, Texas Mark, Gordon G. and Robert S. Dimmick, “Managing the Family Forest,” Forest Service, U. S. Department of Agriculture, Farmers’ Bulletin 2,187, Washington, D.C., 20402: Government Printing Office, 1962. 27 Prater, Tom E. and Sidney L. Jenkins, “Guides for Esti- mating Returns to Labor and Management,” Texas Agricultural Extension Service, MP-380, College Sta- tion, Texas. Rush, John D. and Ralph R. Botts, “Liability and Insur- ance Protection for Farmers Who Have Income-Pro- ducing Recreational Facilities,” U. S. Department of Agriculture, ERS-120, Washington 25, D.C., 1963. Game Production and Management Anderson, Wallace L., “Making Land Produce Useful Wild- life,” U. S. Department of Agriculture, Farmers’ Bul- letin 2035, Washington, D.C., 20402: Government Printing Office, 1960. Arner, Dale H. and Verne E. Davison, “Wild Turkeys,” Soil Conservation Service, U. S. Department of Agri- culture, L-526, Washington, D.C., 20402: Government Printing Office, 1963. Carroll, Theron D., “Antlerless Deer Harvest,” Texas Game and Fish Commission, B-37, Austin, Texas, 1960. Cooper, Edwin H., “Increasing Your Income Through Wildlife Management,” Texas Agricultural Extension Service, MP-463, College Station, Texas. Cooper, Edwin H., and Fred O. Sargent, “Hunting Leases,” Texas Agricultural Extension Service, L-461, College Station, Texas. Cooper, Edwin H., “Wild Game of Texas,” Texas Agri- cultural Extension Service, B-150, College Station, Texas. Fish and Wildlife Service, “Better Hunting and Fishing on Small Watershed Projects,” U. S. Department of Interior, C-100, Washington, D.C., 20402: Government Printing Office, 1961. Goodrum, Phil, “A Population Study of the Grey Squirrel in East Texas,” Texas Agricultural Experiment Sta- tion, 1940. Goodrum, Phil, “The Gray Squirrel in Texas,” Texas Game and Fish Commission, B-42, Austin, Texas, 1961. Hart, Dennis and T. R. Mitchell, “Quail and Pheasant Propagation,” Wildlife Management Institute, Wire Building, Washington 5, D.C., 1962. Jackson, A. S., C. Holt and D. S. Lay, “Habitat Needs and Management Suggestions for Bobwhite Quail in Texas,” Texas Game and Fish Commission, Brochure 101, Austin, Texas, 1962. Kozicky, Edward L., “Shooting Preserves — Private En- terprise in Game Management,” Olin Mathieson Chem- ical Corporation, East Alton, Illinois, 1958. Lay, Daniel W., “Quail Management Handbook for East Texas,” Texas Game and Fish Commission, B-34, Fourth printing, Austin, Texas, 1961. Sportsmen’s Service Bureau, “How to Promote Shooting Preserves,” 420 Lexington Avenue, New York 17, New York. Sportsmen’s Service Bureau, “Shooting Preserve Manage- ment,” 420 Lexington Avenue, New York 17, New York, 1963. Teer, James G., “Texas Deer Herd Management,” Texas Game and Fish Commission, B-44, Austin, Texas, 1963. Texas Game and Fish Commission, “Principal Game Birds and Mammals of Texas,” Austin, Texas, 1945. Trew, E. M., coordinator, “Build East Texas, BET,” Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas, 1963. Fish and Lake Management Brown, William H., “The Fresh Water Catfishes of Texas and How to Know Them,” Texas Game and Fish Commission, Austin, Texas, 1962. 28 Cooper, Edwin H., “Improve Your Farm Texas Agricultural Extension Service, 3-213," Station, Texas. I ‘f Cooper, Edwin H., “Raising Earthworms for "‘ Texas Agricultural Extension Service, L-19’ Station, Texas. Coo-per, Edwin H., “Raising Minnows,” Texas A Extension Service, L-212, College Station, Davison, Verne E., “Managing Farm Fish Ponds. and Bluegills,” U. S. Department of h‘ Farmers’ Bulletin 2094, Washington, D. Government Printing Office, 1963. Davison, Verne E., et al., “Watershed Control " and Ranches,” U. S. Department of 1;; Farmers’ Bulletin 2181, Washington, D. Government Printing Office, 1962. * Dobie, John et al., “Raising Bait Fishes,” U. ‘- mlent of Agriculture, C-35, Washington, D.’ Government Printing Office, 1956. " Fish and Wildlife Service, “Fish and Wildlife1 l of the Texas Gulf Basins,” U. S. Departg; terior, Albuquerque, New Mexico, 1959. Klussmann, Wallace G., “Commercial Channel C, a duction,” Texas Agricultural Extension S _ lege Station, Texas, 1963. ‘ Swingle, H. S., “Relationships and Dynamics of and Unbalanced Fish Populations,” Ala r“ cultural Experiment Station, B-274, Alab», technic Institute, Auburn, Alabama, 1950. Toole, Marion and W. K. Tiller, “Minnow P’ Its Problems and Commercial Possibiliti,” Game and Fish Commission, Austin, Texas; . Toole, Marion, “Utilizing Stock Tanks and F‘ for Fish,” Texas Game and Fish Comm Austin, Texas, 1956. W Ulich, Willie L., “Sealing Ponds and Lakes wi i Clay,” Texas Agricultural Extension Se ' i, College Station, Texas. Ulich, Willie L. and Edwin H. Cooper, “Remi from Tanks and Reservoirs,” Texas wf tension Service, L-55, College Station, Te Ulich, Willie L., “Farm Ponds—Their Cons Maintenance,” Texas Agricultural Extensi B-222, College Station, Texas. ._ . Insect and Poisonous Plant Control Crooks, Donald M. and Leonard W. Kephart, _ Poison-ivy, and Poison-sumac,” U. S. W, Agriculture, Farmers’ Bulletin 1972, =1 i, D.C., 20402: Government Printing Office, [a Entomology Research Division, “Chiggers: l‘) Them,” U. S. Department of Agricul Washington, D.C., 20402: Government Prin 1963. Entomology Research Division, “Fleas: How‘ Them,” U. . Department of Agricul Washington, D.C., 20402: Government P ' -‘ 1962. Entomology Research Division, “Mosquitoes: ., trol Them on Your Property,” U. S. De_ Agriculture, Washington, D.C., 20402: Q Printing Office. l, Newton, W. H. and R. L. Ridgway, “Texan Controlling Insects on Ornamental P Agricultural Extension Service, Colle Texas, 1963. Ridgway, R. L. and C. F. Garner, “Texas G i. trolling Household Insects,” Texas Agri f; tension Service, L-311, College Station, nitation and Water Supplies erican Public Health Association, Inc., “Design, Equip- » ment and Operation of Swimming Pools and Other ‘l Public Bathing Places,” 1790 Broadway, New York, New York. der, William H., “Soils Suitable for Septic Tank - Filter Fields,” U. S. Department of Agriculture, Agri- cultural Information B-243, Washington, D.C., 2.0402: " Government Printing Office, 1961. ‘blic Health Service, “Individual Water Supply Systems,” U. S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, A PHS 24, Washington, D.C., 20402: Government Print- fing Office. lic Health Service, “Manual of Septic Tank Practice,” Y U. S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, . PHS 526, addendums 1 and 2, Washington, D.C., I 20402: Government Printing Office, 1957. .-- Health Service, “Mobile Home Park Sanitation,” ’ U. S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, i Washington, D.C., 20402: Government Printing Office. u els, J. H. and P. J. A. Zeller, “Good Water for Rural Homes,” Texas Engineering Experiment Station, p B-140, College Station, Texas, 1958. i, as State Department of Health, “Minimum Standards it for Public Bathing Places,” Austin 1, Texas. i s State Department of Health, “The Septic Tank,” i Austin, Texas. as State Department of Health, “Protection of Small ; Water Supplies,” Austin, Texas, 1961. ‘ws and Regulations ‘ws, James F. and Ronald Bird, “Reducing Liability . Risks in Farm Recreational Enterprises,” Agricul- 1 tural Experiment Station, University of Missouri and ‘ Resource Economics Development Division, U. S. De- - partment of Agriculture, B-801, Columbia, Missouri, , 1963. Pa» rz, John E., “Game and Fish Laws — State of Texas, “ 1961-1962,” Published by Texas Game and Fish Com- . mission, Austin, Texas, 1961. erg, Erling D., “Legal Aspects of Farm Tenancy in ‘Texas,” U. S. Department of Agriculture and Texas a Agricultural and Mechanical College, B-718, College o. Station, Texas, 1950. A s State Department of Health, “Food and Drug I Laws,” Division of Food and Drugs, Austin, Texas. “as State Department of Health, “Texas Sanitation and , Health Protection Law,” Austin, Texas. " Parks and Wildlife Department, “Fishing Texas , 1963-64,” Austin, Texas, 1963. i‘ n; Parks and Wildlife Department, “Hunting in Texas, 41963-64,” Austin, Texas, 1963. liographies Vral Extension Service, “Bibliography of Selected Pub- flications on Rural Recreation as a Business,” U. S. Department of Agriculture, RDPA3, Washington 25, . D.C., 1962. ral Extension Service, “Addendum to Bibliography of Selected Publications of Rural Recreation as a Busi- mess,” U. S. Department of Agriculture, RDPA66, 'Washington 25, D.C., 1963. mann, Wallace G., “Bibliography of Sources of In- formation on Shooting Preserves,” Texas Agricul- tural Extension Service, College Station, Texas, 1963. ional Recreational Association, “A Guide to Books eon Recreation,” Seventh Annual Edition, 1962-63, ~8 West Eighth Street, New York 11, New York. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. References Cited Bureau of Census, U. S. Department of Commerce, “Second Texas Survey of Fishing and Hunting,” Washington, D.C.: 1961. Prepared for the Texas Game and Fish Commission now part of the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. Composed of the following counties: Angelina, Hardin, Jasper, Montgomery, Newton, Polk, Sabine, San Augustine, San Jacinto, Trinity, Tyler and Walker. This area coincides with Type-of-Farming Area 15, see Bonnen, C.A., “Types of Farming in Texas,” B-964, Texas Agricultural Experiment Sta- tion, College Station, Texas, 1960. Bureau of Census study prepared for Texas Game and Fish Commission, 1961. R. L. Skrabanek, “A Decade of Population Change in Texas,” Texas Agricultural Experiment Station and Texas Agricultural Extension Service, B-1000, Col- lege Station, Texas, 1963. Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission, “Outdoor Recreation for America,” Washington, D.C., 20402: Government Printing Office, 1962. Report of the U. S. Study Commission — Texas, Part II, Resources and Problems, March, 1962. Soil Conservation Service, “Texas Soil and Water Conservation Needs Inventory,” U. S. Department of Agriculture, Temple, Texas, 1962. _ National Forests in Economic Area XIII: Angelina National Forest, Davy Crockett National Forest, Sabine National Foreest, and Sam Houston National Forest. Texas Forest Service, “Forest Resources of East Texas — Current and Future,” Texas A&M Univer- sity System, C-80, College Station, Texas, 1963. Forest Service, “Forests of East Texas, 1953-55,” Forest Survey Release 77, Southern Forest Exper- iment Station, U. S. Department of Agriculture, New Orleans, Louisiana, 1956. John D. Rush and Ralph R. Botts, “Liability and In- surance Protection for Farmers Who Have Income- Producing Recreational Facilities,” U. S. Depart- ment of Agriculture, ERS-120, Washington 25, D.C., 1963. Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission, “Outdoor Recreation For America,” Washington, D.C., 20402: Government Printing Office, 1962. E. M. Trew, coordinator, “Build East Texas, BET.” Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas, 1963. James G. Teer, “Texas Deer Herd Management,” Texas Game and Fish Commission, B-44, Austin, Texas, 1963. Phil Goodrum, “A Population Study of the Grey Squirrel in East Texas,” Texas Agricultural Experi- ment Station, 1940. “The Grey Squirrel in Texas,” Texas Game and Fish Commission B-42, Austin, Texas, 1961. Fish and Wildlife Service, “Abstracts of Mourning Dove Literature,” U. S. Department of Interior, C-136, Washington, D.C., 1962. Daniel W. Lay, “Quail Management Handbook for East Texas,” Texas Game and Fish Commision, B-34, Austin, Texas, 1954. Jackson, A. S., C. Holt, D. S. Lay, “Habitat Needs and Management Suggestions for Bobwhite Quail in Texas,” Texas Game and Fish Commission, Brochure 101, Austin, Texas, 1962. Texas Game and Fish Commission, “Principal Game Birds and Mammals of Texas,” Austin, Texas, 1945. 29 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 30 John E. Leonarz, “Game and Fish Laws, State of Texas, 1961-1962,” Published by Texas Game and Fish Commission, Austin, Texas, 1961. Sportsmen’s Service Bureau, “Shooting Preserve Management,” New York, New York. Fish and Wildlife Service, “Fish and Wildlife Re- sources of the Texas Gulf Basins,” U. S. Department of Interior, Albuquerque, New Mexico, 1959. H. S. Swingle, “Relationships and Dynamics of Bal- anced and Unbalanced Fish Populations,” Alabama Agricultural Experiment Station, B-274, Alabama Polytechnic Institute, Auburn, Alabama, 1950. Edwin H. Cooper, “Improve Your Farm Fish Pond,” Texas Agricultural Extension Service, B-213, Col- lege Station, Texas. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, ,; Texas 1963-64,” Austin, Texas, 1963. Outdoor Recreation Resources Review “Participation in Outdoor Recreation: F" fecting Demand Among American Adults,- 20, Washington, D.C.: 20402: Government Office, 1962. Extreme care should be taken to ensure that; water and sanitary facilities conform to S 1 laws. See: “Texas Sanitation and Health Law.” Texas State Department of Health, “Texas and Health Protection Law,” and “Mini f ards For Public Bathing Places,” Austin,» Better Camping Magazine, “Profile of tunity,” Milwaukee, Wisconsin: Kalbach ” Company, 1963.