The San Francisco call., 1907-01-20
GAME PROTECTION
MEETING WITH
FAVOR

The sportsmen interested In the pro-
lection of the wild game of the State
are conducting a quiet but effective
campaign at Sacramento. the outcome
Of which is expected to be of great
benefit to the game birds and fishes
of the State. The proponents of the
new measure want to place Califor-
MIA abreast of her sister States in the
licensing of hunters and In prohibiting g
the sale of game
The policy of licensing those who
hunt as a just and proper means Of
raising funds for the preservation of
the game has stood the test of more
than a third of a century, and wher-
ever adopted has proved to be
a popular and an eflcacious measure.
The success and the popularity of
these licenses have been so marked
that all Of the Northern States. ex-
cept California and Nevada, have
adopted the license principle In some
form
It is estimated that the licensing
scheme, If applied to California, would
produce annually about $4,000, a fund
sufficient to make the State Board of
Fish Commissioners self-supporting,
without drawing from the general tax
fund contributed by the whole people.
This would give the board more than
three times the amount now appro-
priated for the preservation of a
game supply worth to the State more
than $7,50o,00O in money placed an
nually in circulation by those who
hunt and fish within its borders.
A correspondent of The Call at Hop
land says there are two sides to the
question OF game preservation, and
that this should be taken note of in
framing new laws. He says that
while the anglers object to farmer
IL l.
in violation of the law, the amateur
fisherman is bending mis- energies at
the mouth of a stream with hook and
line taking the same fish from the
water only a few hours run from
where the farmer is located.
stop the man from catching fish
that ascend the streams to spawn" he
says, ''and then you may justly stop
the man at the head of the stream,
who has not the time or the means of
conveyance to go to tide water after
the fish"
He says, also, that the man who
owns land or controls it is the man
who has to protect the game. With
out the owners assistance the Game
Wardens could do nothing on the
large ranges. He cites his own case,
where he has 1000 acres of land IN
Mendocino County. This land has an
OUTSIDE line OF ABOUT Twelve miles,
which must be guarded and the fence
maintained in good order. The poacher
must be watched throughout all this
territory, for he will shoot a doe or
a sheep or anything that has a SEM
blance to game. and then make haste
to get off the premises.
The land owner says that IT Is esti-
mated that there are 200 deer on the
property. A deer consumes as much
food as a sheep. This means 200 sheep,
which are worth $3.50 a head in a
year, thus representing a loss Of $500
to the owner of the property. To this
must be added the cost of protection,
fences broken and other damage.
which amounts to another $500. For
this the owner is allowed to kill two
male deer. He suggests that the game
protectionists have a law passed max
ing 1t a misdemeanor for any per-
son found hunting on the land of an
other. whether inclosed or not. He
also would make 1t a penitentiary Of
fense for a man to make fire on the
premises of another or on Government
land.