THE GROUND SQUIRRELS OP CALIFORNIA. 



729 



soon became apparent that men engaged in this sort of work would 

 far rather contract on an acreage basis. Bounties did not seem to be 

 particularly attractive to the hunter nor even to the counties them- 

 selves. As a matter of fact the many counties had the state bounty 

 law repealed during the legislative sessions of 1872-73-74-75-76 and 

 1877. The law had proved to be inoperative. The only way in which 

 bounties again came into force was through the enactment of laws 

 empowering boards of supervisors to provide for the destruction of 

 ground squirrels, 1 gophers, etc. No particular means were specified, 

 hence the methods placed in effect were at the discretion of the board. 

 From time to time, infestations of ground squirrels would become 

 heavy in certain valleys or districts in a county, resulting in the estab- 

 lishment of the bounty scheme. A great many records of amounts 

 paid out in this fashion have come to light, but with no particular 

 sequence, for a period of bounty payments either soon created a deficit 

 in the bounty fund or caused such an enormous drain on the general 

 fund that the board of supervisors was forced to discontinue same. 

 Whenever these county officials were petitioned to reinstate the bounty 

 plan or whenever they considered the damage serious enough, they 

 would discuss it through one or more meetings before final action would 

 be taken. It is quite evident that supervisors had no well-defined idea 

 as to the number of squirrels existing at any one time in their county, 

 for a high bounty would be instituted which had to be discontinued in 

 a few months, due to depletion of funds set aside for the purpose. 



Notation should be made of some of the amounts paid for bounties 

 through the years and the enormous expense it has occasioned can in 

 some measure be judged thereby. Whether it was ever a profitable 

 proposition for the farmer or the country at large to pay large sums 

 for squirrel bounties, is greatly doubted, although this concession is 

 made by one writer that the burden of extermination through bounty 

 payments falls as heavily upon the shirking landowner as upon the 

 energetic one. The large landholder also had a share of the expense 

 to stand if the small rancher was forced to exterminate the pest on part 

 of the larger holdings in order to protect his crop. 



In 1892 one party from Bradley turned into the Monterey Board of 

 Supervisors squirrel tails to the number of 21,755, claiming $1,085.37. 

 This was a part of 36,000 passed. In San Benito County at the meeting 

 of the Board of Supervisors claims were paid, on 105,200 squirrels and 

 gophers, chiefly the former, which made a total for the spring and 

 early summer of 225,200 of these pests at five cents each. The argu- 

 ment is put forth by the Hollister Advance that if each of those 

 squirrels had done a dollar's damage the business was profitable, even 

 though it seemed an enormous drain on the treasury. In June, 1899, 

 the board of San Luis Obispo paid to one man a two-cent bounty on 

 15,434 squirrels, and during April, 1900, the Monterey County super- 

 visors allowed claims for 83,452 tails for the spring season. During 

 the years 1913 and 1914 the Modoc County Board of Supervisors paid 

 out $14,761.57, which at three cents per tail would amount to nearly 

 a half million squirrels, mostly Oregon ground squirrels, which are no 

 mean destroyers of agricultural products. 



■ -^Statutes of -California 1883, Chap. LXXV, sec. 25, par. 28, p. 308. 



137 



