132 The Pocket Gopher. 



dent of the farm on which its burrow is located. The justifi- 

 cation for placing a price on the scalp of an animal like the 

 coyote or puma, that may take toll from one man's flock to-day 

 and from his neighbor's, miles away, to-morrow, is entirely 

 wanting in the case of the pocket gopher. The principle of 

 allowing the community at large to pay the expense of pro- 

 tecting the careless man's crop, while his thrifty neighbor 

 looks after his own fields, is theoretically wrong. It imposes 

 a double burden upon thrift. 



Again, the payment of ten cents for each scalp will put a 

 premium on trapping and tend to discourage poisoning, the 

 more thorough and easily applied method of ridding a badly 

 infested locality of these pests. 



Further, the expense of maintaining a bounty system is 

 usually out of all proportion to the benefits gained. Experi- 

 ence in other states, and in a few counties in this state, has 

 demonstrated that bounties on small mammals seldom, if ever, 

 accomplish the desired end ridding the community of the 

 pests. After the cream of the territory has been skimmed, so 

 to speak, trapping becomes unprofitable and large numbers 

 of the animals are left to again regain their ground. Long 

 before even the skimming process is completed, however, the 

 heavy drain on the public treasuries usually results in the re- 

 peal of the law. No state has ever been able to pay a general 

 bounty on small mammals for any considerable length of time. 



Finally, the opportunities for fraud in the matter of claim- 

 ing bounties are much greater in the case of the pocket 

 gopher than with the larger and better known mammals. The 

 majority of county clerks to whom the scalps will be presented 

 have perhaps never seen a pocket gopher. At least they are 

 not trained mammalogists, and only such can, under certain 

 circumstances, distinguish the scalp of a pocket gopher from 

 that of some of the other small mammals. The law requires 

 that the scalp, with the ears, be presented in evidence ; but the 

 gopher has practically no external ears. Any ingenious boy 

 with a ticket punch can easily manufacture a half dozen legal 

 scalps from the pelt of a single gopher. Although not .specified 

 in the law, it would be well to require the cheek-pockets to be 

 included with the scalp. There could then be little question as 

 to the identity of the animal. 



In 1903, four years previous to the enactment of the present 



