REPORT OF THE BUREAU OF GAME 

 CONSERVATION 



Each year California's unattached hunters are finding fewer areas 

 on Aviiich to hunt, because trespass without permission and damage to 

 pr()i)s. livestock, fences and other property by a minority of unsports- 

 iiumlikc hunters have created an unfriendly situation between sportsmen 

 and hiiK [owners. This hostile relationship between landowners and 

 liuiitcrs was especially prevalent in the rice-growing region of the Sac- 

 I'ameuto Valley where most of the State's pheasant population is found. 

 Opening tliese areas to controlled pheasant hunting has been one of the 

 most urgent problems confronting the bureau. 



.\ii (xpci-iiiiciital pheasant study area, the Sartain Ranch, initiated 

 by bureau game biologists, was instrumental in the development of regu- 

 lated hunting on j)rivate lands in California. Hunting on this ranch was 

 successfully controlled in 1947 and 1948 by the bureau in cooperation 

 with the hiiidowiiei'. The experience gained during these two years led 

 to tlie developiueut of a coo])ei'ative hunting ])lan in 1949. In this year 

 Senate Hill Xo. G77 establishing cooperative hunting areas was passed 

 by the State Legislature and was included in the Fish and Game Code 

 as Section 11.')!). Rules and regulations for the management and control 

 of these areas wei'c then drawn up by bureau employees and enacted by 

 the Fish and Crime Connnission. 



In order to minimize the problem of supervision and control, and 

 at the same time to accommodate a large inimber of hunters, it was 

 i-eijuii'ed that on any prospective area a minimum of 5,000 acres in a 

 continuous ti'act be open to public hunting. A provision was made to 

 allow the landowner to collect a daily fee not to exceed $2 per hunter 

 if he so desired, with the stipulation tliat 25 percent of the total collected 

 was to he used for wildlife maintenance and habitat improvement. 

 Three ty|)es of zones were provided for in 1949: (Tosed zones (for 

 protection of crops, buildings and livestock) on which no hunting was 

 piMiiiitted; i-estricted zones, on which |)efmission to hunt was granted 

 solel\' by hindow nei-s ; and o])en zones, which were open to public /unit- 

 ing l»y permit. Restricted zones were limited in size to 20 percent of the 

 total ;ire;i ; open zones liad to be either a .'j.OOO-acre tract or 50 percent 

 of the entii-c coopcr-at i\-e hunting area, whiehevei" was larger. The maxi- 

 nnim numher of hunters allowed at any one time was one per five acres 

 of opi'll hind, with the stipulation that the nuinbei- of huntei-s could be 

 (jcerejisi'd ;is conditions war'i-anted. 



hiirin'j till' I'M!! p|ic;is;inl IninlinL! season, six eooperatixe hunting 

 areas were establishe(| by the hnicaii. On only one area (Sai'tain) was 

 a fei' cliai'gi'<| for huntin;^ privileges. T.y ma inta inin-j checking stations 

 on each area, hni'ean pci'sonnel were able to conti'ol hunting, issue per- 

 mits, and gather piMtimiil ini'ormalion re^iarding the jjlieasant kill. 

 Reactions to thi^ Innitin'j plan were recorded and fa\-orable I'Csponses 

 to this type of controlled shooting far exceeded unfavorable remarks. 

 ()ii the Sai'tain area some criticism was directed toward the fee foi' 

 hnnting. However, most of this censure was voiced by unsuccessful 



(24) 



