for April, 1919 
I 1 
DUCKS AND RICE 
By Dr. H. C. Bryant 
Game Expert of the California Fish and Game Commission 
Museum of Vertebrate Zoology 
University of California 
Editor's Note: We are pleased to 
acknowledge receipt of the following 
treatise from the offices of the Cali- 
fornia Nish and Game Commissioner. 
It has been submitted for exclusive 
use in the COURIER . 
This report comprises material 
gathered from various sources with 
the addition of facts gained first 
hand while investigating* conditions 
during* September and October, 1918. 
Nearly three weeks were spent near 
Willows and Maxwell on the west side 
in Glenn and Colusa Counties and four 
days on the east side in Sutter and 
Butte Counties. 
HISTORY 
The problem presented by the dam- 
age to rice caused by ducks is a 
relatively new one. Although rice has 
been grown in the Sacramento Valiev 
for some ten years yet complaint of 
damage by ducks has not come into 
prominence until the last two years. 
During the 1917 session of the legis- 
lature no mention of damage by ducks 
was made by rice growers when they 
attempted to remove protection from 
blackbirds because of their depreda- 
tions in the rice fields. Had severe 
damage been caused by ducks up to 
this time some complaint would cer- 
tainly have been made. 
In the fall of 1917 many news- 
paper accounts of damage caused to 
growing rice and rice in the shock 
appeared. Numerous complaints 
made to the Fish and Game Com- 
mission finally resulted in detailing 
Mr. George Neale to investigate con- 
ditions and discover some means of 
protecting rice from the depredations 
of ducks. Mr. Neale hit upon the 
idea of using tire-works as a means 
to frighten the birds, and demon- 
strated that this method was prac- 
ticable. The use of bombs thrown into 
the aii* from a mortar proved most 
effective. Mr. Cooper of Live Oak, 
Sutter County, reported that bombs 
furnished by the Rayeliff Sales Com- 
pany of San Francisco were very 
effective and that the explosion of 
these bombs drove the birds from the 
fields in such confusion that they did 
not return. 
Early in the fall of 1918 numerous 
newspaper articles again appeared 
exaggerating damage done and at- 
tacking the Fish and Game Commis- 
sion. The main point made in these 
articles was to the effect that rice 
growers should be allowed to slaughter 
ducks before the season opened and 
to market them as a conservation of 
food measure. No mention was made 
of means of protecting crops. Prom- 
inent among the rice growers men- 
tioned as accusing the ducks of great 
damage was Mr. W. D’Egilbert of the 
Western Rice Growers, Incorporated, 
a corporation, not an association, of 
rice growers, as the name would in- 
dicate. 
The attitude of Mr. D’Egilbert may 
be judged from the following quota- 
tions from letters. He was doubtless 
misquoted in the papers. 
“The reports of the damage by 
ducks to matured rice crops so far as 
mv interests are concerned are not ex- 
%•* 
aggerated unless you would say 
twenty-five acres off one tract of 160 
acres dost roved in less than a week 
is exaggeration. The crop immediately 
contiguous to this destroyed crop will 
average from 38 to 40 sacks to the 
acre. Yon must bear in mind that 
tli is was only one specific instance on 
a twelve hundred acre plantation, and 
there were several more small patches 
eaten off.” 
y 
u\ 
Fig. 1. This rice injured by ducks. 
Fallamas Ranch , near Gridley, Cal. 
‘‘For two weeks before the opening 
of the duck season I found it neces- 
sary to keep three men constantly 
employed with guns to kill or scare 
the pests, and used besides bird shot, 
rifle balls and skv rockets. Our am- 
munition bill would average, I should 
judge, about $3,00 per day and the 
men’s wages were $3.50 each per day. 
(Letter dated October 30, 1917.) 
‘‘In view of the fact that I and 
mv associate have lost by as close an 
*-* *• 
approximate as possible four thous- 
and sacks of rice from duck depreda- 
tions, I am inviting prominent citizens 
of this section to visit our plantation 
for the purpose of assisting me in 
preparing the data necessary to con- 
vince vour Commission that the State 
% 
of California is losing a heavy food 
supply to say nothing of financial 
loss to the farmers.” (Letter of W. 
D’Egilbert, November 5, 1917.) 
“It is my desire to be helpful to 
your commission in remedying what 
amounts to an evil, for if the same 
damage has been done in other plan- 
tations as I have proved has been 
done in ours and other adjoining 
plantations, California has lost over 
300,000 sacks of rice valued at. over 
$1,000,000, in the past eight week. 
(Letter November 10, 1917.) 
As possible solutions of the prob- 
lem Mr. D’Egilbert offered the fol- 
lowing: 
“1. A district to embrace the Coun- 
ties of Glenn, Butte, Sutter, Colusa 
and Yolo to be known as the “duck 
district” in which shooting of ducks 
could lawfully begin on September 
loth of each year. 
2. The right for hunters to kill 
ducks without limit from September 
15th to October 31st: in each vear in 
V 
said district. 
3. Ducks killed in said season may 
be disposed of as the hunter desires, 
but not by selling in public markets.” 
(Letter dated November 16, 1917.) 
In an interview on September 17, 
1918, Mr. D’Egilbert stated that lie 
did not wish to exterminate the ducks, 
but simply wished to protect his 
crops. He even suggested that bombs 
might prove to be the best means. 
He stated that his appearance so 
often in the newspapers was due to 
the oft-repeated expression by the 
Fish and Game Commission “alleged 
damage to rice.” He was anxious 
that every one understand that the 
damage was real. 
Several rice growers finally ap- 
pealed to the Food Administration 
with the result that the United States 
Biological Survey sent Mr. Alexander 
Wet more to make a thorough in- 
vestigation. Mr. Wetmore spent over 
two months investigating conditions, 
and his report brought about the so- 
lution of the problem, as indicated 
further on in this report. During 
September and the first part of Oc- 
tober, 1918, we worked with Mr. 
Wetmore. 
METHODS USED IN 
INVESTIGATION 
As it was important that the real 
facts regarding the controversy as to 
the damage caused by ducks be ob- 
tained, the problem was approached 
from several different angles. In the 
first place a large number of growers 
were interviewed and their point of 
view accurately recorded. The meth- 
ods of rice culture were investigated, 
numerous rice fields surveyed, and 
