120 CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME. 



Ill lliis art there is no confiscation oi' property Avitlioiit just remu- 

 neration. The county must purchase such a rijiht of way after due 

 pi'ocess of condemnation. Further, the ])eople of this state have 

 heen taxed from 1871 to 1!)0!) for the upkeep of the hatcheries and 

 for the importation and (listril)ution of vahiable food fishes. It is 

 estimated, on reliable authority, that fully 95 per cent of the fish 

 now in our streams are the result of the work of the Fish Commission 

 in the importation, artificial propagation, and distribution of fish. 

 Since the people have had to pay for the hatching and distribution of 

 ))raetically all the fish in the streams, it certainly follows that they 

 should have the sole and exclusive right to partake of them, subject 

 to such rules and regulations as they themselves enact into laws through 

 the medium of their representatives. Inasmuch as they have signi- 

 fied their intention to protect property from wanton destruction 

 and to give just remuneration to those whose real estate is needed 

 in the further advance of community interests, it also follows that 

 they may call upon any person to allow free access of the public to 

 the fishing streams they have stocked, and to remunerate him for 

 the loss of the needed part of his estate. 



This is certainly just and equitable when the required strip lies 

 wholly upon wild lands not in any manner devoted to agricultural 

 pursuits. In the peaceful entering upon wild lands for the purpose 

 of fishing, the disciple of Isaac Walton carries no more dangerous 

 weapons than his rod, line and hooks. The danger of maiming or 

 otherwise injuring stock is reduced to a minimum, and the loss to the 

 individual through the forfeit of his sole and exclusive right to fish 

 in that stream is nil. 



On the other hand, we have the time-worn and vexing question of 

 private game preserves or hunting grounds. The erroneous idea pre- 

 vailing among some people regarding these institutions is founded 

 upon a lack of information concerning them. The people at large 

 have not taken the time to correctly inform themselves upon this 

 subject. It is claimed that private hunting grounds may be done 

 away wnth and the self-same argument used in the matter of public 

 fishing is advanced against them. But the positions of the two ques- 

 tions are not analogous in any particular. Can we exercise the right 

 of eminent domain against the private hunting ground, or can we con- 

 demn it in the interests of the great mass of hunters, and yet be just 

 and equitable to the owner of the land? We must take into considera- 

 tion the natural elements entering into the question, and, in so doing, we 

 would commence with the most prominent bone of contention, the "duck 

 club." 



The greater portion of duck club grounds furnish the best stock 

 pastures in the state. On the duck-shooting grounds of the Sacra- 

 mento and San Joaquin valleys you will find more grazing stock to 

 the acre than anywhere in the uplands. While this territory is cov- 

 ered with water the year round it is not flooded merely to make it a 

 rendezvous for the waterfowl. Nature herself is responsible for these 

 immense areas of water. The water is from six inches to two feet 

 in depth over the whole area and you will see stock feeding upon 

 the succulent aquatic grasses and plants that spread their heads above 

 the surface. The whole area is enclosed in a stock-tight, barbed wire 



