REPORT OF STATE BOARD OF FISH COMMISSIONERS 63 



to do so, as experience has shown that as the people come closer in 

 touch with wild birds or animals, they are less anxious to destroy them 

 and their efforts are turned more in the direction of protection and 

 preservation. 



Many requests have come from those living in the mountain counties 

 asking for permission to retain in poe >n a fawn that had been 



picked up helpless, and would have died but for the attention given it. 

 We discourage the taking of live deer, but generally grant a request 

 to retain a fawn taken in that way. believing it means another deer 

 saved. After a fawn (if it be a male) gets to be a year old, the 

 party holding it is generally glad enough to release it, as the anijnal is 

 then able to take care of himself. The female fawns seem to become 

 quickly domesticated and will not leave a place where they are kindly 

 treated. 



When permits to trap wild game are issued, we have, in the past two 

 years, established a time limit during which the permit can be used. 

 This was done as an additional safeguard. Some of our earlier permits 

 were not restricted in that way, the only limit being the number of 

 birds or animals that could be taken. Under the present law, we issue 

 permits to trap to those who write for permission to destroy protected 

 game, claiming it does them damage. 



As the provisions of the non-game law do not apply to protected 

 game, we meet the situation by issuing a permit to the complainant, 

 permitting him to take a limited number. In San Diego County, for 

 example, from which section the most vigorous complaints come, we 

 have granted permission to land owners who thought they were being 

 damaged. For the service we paid $2.50 per dozen, crated and delivered 

 at the nearest express office. The birds were then transported at our 

 expense to other portions of the State where they are scarce and where 

 it was believed new blood would be an advantage to the old stock. This 

 rule has worked very satisfactorily, as after the farmer finds he can get 

 a money value for trapping them, besides having them shipped away, 

 he is glad enough to take advantage of it; but in every instance we 

 have found that the number of birds that were reported doing damage was 

 grossly exaggerated. For the year 1906 we have had practically no 

 complaints of that kind. In 1905 we had issued permits for the trap- 

 ping of two hundred dozen, which were to be captured in those sections 

 where the greatest damage was reported. The number of birds taken 

 on these permits was less than fifty dozen. 



In certain quarters there has been some bitter criticism regarding 

 our interpretation of the law with reference to permits. Under the 

 statutory provisions authorizing this Commission to issue permits for 

 scientific purposes and for purposes of propagation, we have construed 

 it to mean that everything which makes for the restoration and pres- 

 ervation of game should be granted freely. 



