Viewing page 5 of 151
This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.
[[double line]] for April, 1919 11 [[line]] DUCKS AND RICE By Dr. H. C. Bryant Game Expert of the California Fish and Game Commission Museum of Vertebrate Zoology University of California Editor's Note: We are pleased to acknowledge receipt of the following treatise from the offices of the California Fish and Game Commissioner. It has been submitted for exclusive use in the COURIER. This report comprises material gathered from various sources with the addition of facts gained first hand while investigating conditions during September and October, 1918. Nearly three weeks were spent near Willows and Maxwell on the west side in Glenn and Colusa Counties and four days on the east side in Sutter and Butte Counties. HISTORY The problem presented by the damage to rice caused by ducks is a relatively new one. Although rice has been grown in the Sacramento Valley for some ten years yet complaint of damage by ducks has not come into prominence until the last two years. During the 1917 session of the legislature no mention of damage by ducks was made by rice growers when they attempted to remove protection from blackbirds because of their depredations in the rice fields. Had severe damage been caused by ducks up to this time some complaint would certainly have been made. In the fall of 1917 many newspaper accounts of damage caused to growing rice and rice in the shock appeared. Numerous complaints made to the Fish and Game Commission finally resulted in detailing Mr. George Neale to investigate conditions and discover some means of protection rice from the depredations of ducks. Mr. Neale hit upon the idea of using fire-works as a means to frighten the birds, and demonstrated that this method was practicable. The use of bombs thrown into the air from a mortar proved most effective. Mr. Cooper of Live Oak, Sutter County, reported that bombs furnished by the Raycliff Sales Company of San Francisco were very effective and that the explosion of these bombs drove the birds from the fields in such confusion that they did not return. Early in the fall of 1918 numerous newspaper articles again appeared exaggerating damage done and attacking the Fish and Game Commission. The main point made in these articles was to the effect that rice growers should be allowed to slaughter ducks before the season opened and to market them as a conservation of food measure. No mention was made of means of protecting crops. Prominent among the rice growers mentioned as accusing the ducks of great damage was Mr. W. D'Egilbert of the Western Rice Growers, Incorporated, a corporation, not an association, of rice growers, as the name would indicate. The attitude of Mr. D'Egilbert may be judged from the following quotations from letters. He was doubtless misquoted in the papers. "The reports of the damage by ducks to matured rice crops so far as my interests are concerned are not exaggerated unless you would say twenty-five acres off one tract of 160 acres destroyed in less than a week is exaggeration. The crop immediately contiguous to this destroyed crop will average from 38 to 40 sacks to the acre. You must bear in mind that this was only specific instance on a twelve hundred acre plantation, and there were several more small patches eaten off." [[image - black & white photograph of a damaged rice field]] [[caption]] Fig. 1. This rice injured by ducks. Fallamas Ranch, near Gridley, Cal. [[/caption]] "For two weeks before the opening of the duck season I found it necessary to keep three men constantly employed with guns to kill or scare the pests, and used besides bird shot, rifle balls and sky rockets. Our ammunition bill would average, I should judge, about $3.00 per day and the men's wages were $3.50 each per day. (Letter dated October 30, 1917.) "In view of the fact that I and my associate have lost by as close an approximate as possible four thousand sacks of rice from duck depredations, I am inviting prominent citizens of this section to visit our plantation for the purpose of assisting me in preparing the data necessary to convince your Commission that the State of California is losing a heavy food supply to say nothing of financial loss to the farmers." (Letter of W. D'Egilbert, November 5, 1917.) "It is my desire to be helpful to your commission in remedying what amounts to an evil, for if the same damage has been done in other plantations as I have proved has been done in ours and other adjoining plantations, California has lost over 300,000 sacks of rice valued at over $1,000,000, in the past eight weeks. (Letter November 16, 1917.) As possible solutions of the problem Mr. D'Egilbert offered the following: "1. A district to embrace the Counties of Glenn, Butte, Sutter, Colusa and Yolo to be known as the "duck district" in which shooting of ducks could lawfully begin on September 15th of each year. 2. The right for hunters to kill ducks without limit from September 15th to October 31st in each year in said district. 3. Ducks killed in said season may be disposed of as the hunter desires, but not by selling in public markets." (Letter dated November 16, 1917.) In an interview on September 17, 1918, Mr. D'Egilbert stated that he did not wish to exterminate the ducks, but simply wished to protect his crops. He even suggested that bombs might prove to be the best means. He stated that his appearance so often in the newspapers was due to the oft-repeated expression by the Fish and Game Commission "alleged damage to rice." He was anxious that everyone understand that the damage was real. Several rice growers finally appealed to the Food Administration with the result that the United States Biological Survey sent Mr. Alexander Wetmore to make a thorough investigation. Mr. Wetmore spent over two months investigating conditions, and his report brought about the solution of the problem, as indicated further on in this report. During September and the first part of October, 1918, we worked with Mr. Wetmore. METHODS USED IN INVESTIGATION As it was important that the real facts regarding the controversy as to the damage caused by ducks be obtained, the problem was approached from several different angles. In the first place a large number of growers were interviewed and their point of view accurately recorded. The methods of rice culture were investigated, numerous rice fields surveyed, and
