Viewing page 6 of 151
This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.
[[double line]] 12 Pacific Rice Courier [[line]] careful investigation of actual damage in different localities was undertaken and the actual damage estimated. Furthermore, the habits of ducks and other birds in their relation to rice were studied. A large amount of territory both on the west side and the east side of the Sacramento River in Colusa, Glenn, Sutter and Butte Counties was investigated. [[image - black & white photograph of damaged rice field]] [[caption]] Fig. 2. Open patch of water and damaged rice. Fallaman Ranch, near Gridley, Cal. [[/caption]] RESULTS OF INVESTIGATION Interviews: In order that the point of view of the rice grower himself be well understood, a large number of growers (about fifty) were interviewed. Furthermore, townspeople merely interested in the problem were also interviewed. The farm adviser of Glenn County did not appear to be greatly disturbed over the agitation. He simply suggested that some means of attacking the problem should be worked out. The horticultural commissioner appeared to be more interested in being able to shoot ducks than in the damage to crops. Mr. Ernest Behr, Secretary of the Pacific Rice Growers Association, minimized the damage done and pointed out that the dead duck does not protect any better than the scared duck. In a letter to Hon. Frank Newbert, President of the Fish and Game Commission, dated August 8, 1919, Mr. Behr Said: "It has come to my attention that various persons, some of whom in the past have been pecuniarily interested in the killing and marketing of wildfowl, are now seeking to have the open season for taking such wildfowl extended by earlier opening, under the plea of saving the rice fields from destruction. Such a plea is wholly specious, having neither merit nor foundation in fact. I speak from the standpoint of a rice-grower. I do not desire to be understood as saying the wild ducks do not damage the rice in some instances, both in the stock and in the shock. I do say, however, that the extension of the open season is not the proper solution of the problem. Once the restrictions under the protective season are removed, the rice grower will face a far graver menace—a more serious loss—than that caused by the presence of wild-fowl in their fields. Trespassing hunters will do more damage in trampling and shelling out the ripened and ripening rice than the ducks will do. Likewise, it will cost more money to patrol the rice fields against the invasions of trespassing hunters than is represented by the amount of damage the ducks will do. The proponents of an earlier beginning of the open season assert that as the law of trespass obtains at all times, all a grower has to do is to post notices warning hunters away and they will not enter his field. This is not true, as many growers can testify. But even granting that the law of trespass is observed and respected, the evil is not cured. There is nothing to prevent hunters shooting from the highways and sending their dogs into the fields to retrieve the fallen game. A dog scurrying through a field of ripened rice will trample and shell as much rice as will a man similarly engaged. In this connection it is my opinion and believe that those who shoot ducks and permit them to lie where they fall, without making use of them as food, are in these days when conservation of all resources means success or failure in the prosecution of the war, are not good citizens. In fine, there is really nothing to be said in advocacy of extending the open season on wild fowl as a means of ridding the rice fields of the ducks. In fact, employment of the shotgun as a means to this end is a failure. It is a very costly practice and fails utterly to keep the birds away. In this I speak from experience. On our holdings we have employed men, furnishing shotguns and ammunition, to scare the ducks away. It cost lots of money and gave no appreciable results. Last year we tried bombs, with pronounced success, and this year will use them entirely. It cost far less money and gave most excellent results. Out of this experience and that of other growers who have used bombs, I am prepared to say that with their adoption, the problem of keeping wildfowl out of the rice fields is solved. I believe it would be most unwise to make a change in the game laws looking to an earlier open season. I recall that last year when it was reported very generally over the coast that the California game laws would be abrogated in the mistaken belief that the rice growers would be benefited thereby, hundreds of hunters rushed to the rice belt of the Sacramento Valley. They came from Vancouver on the north and from San Diego on the south. They came by train and by automobile, and automobile parties camped at the roadside awaiting word of the hoped-for remission of the game laws, were a common sight. Fortunately, no change was made and hunters returned to their respective localities—a most fortunate circumstance for the growers of rice." The consensus opinion of the growers interviewed was that the grower should lawfully be allowed to protect his crops. Practically all were opposed to allowing indiscriminate hunting as the hunters and dogs would cause much more damage than the ducks. It was noticeable that exaggerated statements as to damage done invariably came from townspeople who were interested in obtaining ducks to eat before the season opened. [[image - black & white photograph of a damaged rice field]] [[caption]] Fig. 3. Rice damaged by ducks. Note heads stripped of kernels. Ranch of Bismarck Harden, near Maxwell, Colusa County, Cal. [[/caption]] DAMAGE NOT WIDESPREAD As evidence that damage is not widespread, but limited to certain areas, we offer the following quotations from letters: "Wild ducks do absolutely no harm at any time, but blackbirds are very destructive and a menace to the growing rice. (B. P. English, Gridley, Cal.) "So far as I have observed they have never done any particular damage— in fact I know of none. (J. F. Garrette, President Biggs, Rice and Land Company, Biggs, Cal.)
