728 



THE MONTHLY BULLETIN. 



dations revived the "bounty scheme" even as late as 1917. The bounty 

 law of 1869-70 1 provided for proper assessment to be levied upon 

 taxable property for the establishment of the so-called bounty fund. 

 The amount assessable for this fund varied with counties. Contra 

 Costa County had the highest assessable amount, due probably to the 

 excessive number of squirrels within its boundaries. Five cents per 

 $100.00 valuation in Contra Costa and two cents in each of the fol- 

 lowing counties: Alameda, Stanislaus, Merced, Fresno, San Joaquin 

 and Yolo. It was necessary to have 50 squirrel scalps or 25 gopher 

 scalps before any claims for bounties on these animals could be filed. 

 The total amount payable in any one county depended, then, upon the 

 amount levied into the bounty fund. The regulation bounty for the 

 period was five cents for squirrels and eight cents for gophers. There 

 can be no question about the satisfaction that prevailed as soon as these 

 laws became effective, but who could tell that these laws might not be 

 declared unconstittuional ? However, no one questioned their legality 

 as statutes, at least for the earlier period of their existence, for they 

 were amended a number of times by the legislature of 1871-72. 



Alameda County went a step farther in getting bounty districts 

 established by the board of supervisors, 2 when a petition defining the 

 limits, accompanied by names of five-eighths of landowners within a 

 certain district should be presented to the board asking for establish- 

 ment of such districts. The board of supervisors could set the amount 

 of the bounty to be paid and were authorized to assess at a rate not 

 to exceed five cents per $100.00 taxable valuation, in the particular dis- 

 trict. During this same session Contra Costa County lost her bounty 

 law by legislative act, 3 the exact cause for which can not be ascertained. 



However, considerable evidence has been produced to show that during 

 the following year, 1873, ravages of ground squirrels caused a multi- 

 tude of complaints from the bay counties, and not in the least from 

 Contra Costa. Small farms, dairies and orchards abounded in the east 

 bay region, consequently it would seem most probable that from this 

 quarter the interest to institute new methods and to try them out both 

 from the angle of control and legislation would exceed that in counties 

 where large ranches were still the rule. And true enough, later we 

 find a convention called to meet in San Francisco to discuss ways and 

 means, in which Contra Costa and Alameda counties played a most 

 important part. This convention carried the bounty system into the 

 district inspector system, which will be dealt with after having followed 

 the successes and failures of the bounty. 



BOUNTIES, 



The statement already was made that not a corporation or enterprise 

 in the state of California paid dividends as large as those that farmers 

 would realize from the few dollars properly employed in exterminating 

 ground squirrels. 



It would seem that if professional squirrel hunters or poisoners could 

 be encouraged, at least temporary relief could be looked for, but it 



statutes of California 1869-70, Chap. CCXIV, p. 316. 

 2 Statutes of California 1871-2, Chap. CCCXVII. 

 statutes of California 1871-2, Chap. OLXIX, p. 834. 



136 



