Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1885-10-03
Law wanted to Protect VIVA Ducks.

Law Wanted to Protect Wild Ducks.
EDS. REcoRD-U UNION noticed an article
IN your issue of September sd, taken from
the Dutch Hat placer county, Times of
September 18th, entitled Unjust Game
Laws in which complaint is made as to
the time set for killing mountain quail.
Now / have complaint to make, also,
about what [ shall entitle unjust No
Game Law" The first law We had in this
State for the protection OF ducks only speci-
fed the mallard and wood, or summer
duck, which left large opening for hunt
ers and sports TO kill all species of the
above bird, and by dressing-that is, pluck
ing the feathers and cutting the heads and
feet oH-no one but an expert could swear
to the name Of the duck. Then there was
an amendment made to that law, including
all of the Hat-bill species; the close season
being from the 18th day of March to the
18th day Of September of each year.
That was 8 good and just law but there
was class of rich farmers in Colusa county
that thought, or imagined that they were
being ruined by q few malard and widgeon
ducks, for that is the only kind that do any
damage TO grain. These farmers, not wish
ing to let the poor hunter live, and wishing
to have the ducks destroyed and driven
from the country, had o bill passed at the
legislative term before the last, repeating
the duck law altogether. Now ducks can
be killed all seasons of the year, shot OIL
their nests, eggs ana young DESTROYED, and
class of men that followed shooting
ducks for livelihood must 20 hungry. so
that the rich farmer may put few more
dollars IN his pocket Thus il is the big fish
eat up the little ones.
About the Ist of August Of this wear. and
even before that time, every man and boy
that could handle shotgun, and lived in
the vicinity of a lake or pond, was out
shooting, almost before the birds were able
TO fly, and many sacks of ducks were
shipped TO San Francisco when the Their
mometer was up in the ninetes, and
dumped IN the bay on the day of arrival.
In fact, they were spoiled before they ar
rived. In some few cases, where shipments
arrived in fair condition, the weather was
so warm that there was no demand for
game, and the dealers were compelled to
sell at any price they could get to get rid of
them. Consequently prices were only about
one-half or less than half, of what they
should have been. Had there been q law
TO protect that class of game until the 18th
of September, it would have been in better
condition and more in demand, brought
better prices and ienlunerated the hunter
for his work
ask now that the sporting clubs of this
State and men that follow duck shooting
for Hvelihood-men that like to live and
let live-should join together and use every
means in their power to have the duck law
go into effect again for it was a good law
as to time and penalties for violation, and
could not be made better. As | have said
that it was only the mallard and widgeon
which destroyed grain, will venture 10
assert that to take the average errair-rsisir,s
acreage in the State, and the number of the
kind of ducks that feed on it, and it would
not be found that there ere two bits to the
acre of grain destroyed by ducks. 1t is the
geese that cause the destruction, for there
are six or seven different kinds of them,
and they all feed on grain in every stage.
Now, let some lovers of protective laws
for ducks, who are more capable of writing
articles on the subject than l am, agitate
the question before and at the next session
of the Legislature, and have this unjust
no law on ducks wiped out
G. ". STOUT.
CORTLAND, October 1, 1885.