From Bounties to Burrows: The Evolution of Pocket Gopher Control

Pocket gophers, found in various species, are known for being significant pests, causing damage to agriculture, home gardens, landscaping, and forest regeneration efforts. Their burrowing and gnawing activities lead to the destruction of crops and physical infrastructure such as underground pipes, electrical lines, and irrigation systems. Their burrows also weaken earthen structures like dams, levees, and dikes, potentially causing costly failures. These pests favor crops such as alfalfa, clover, root vegetables like potatoes and carrots, and fruit trees like apples, peaches, and cherries, often damaging or killing them by girdling their roots and crowns.

Historically, the problem of pocket gophers was so severe that many regions implemented bounty programs, offering payments for their scalps or tails. For instance, Benton County, Iowa, established a bounty system in 1866, paying for gopher scalps. By the late 1800s, similar programs had spread to states like Iowa, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Minnesota, with bounties extended to include ground squirrels. However, ground squirrels were easier to capture, leading to an overrepresentation of their scalps in bounty submissions.

Despite the initial intent to control pest populations, bounty systems were prone to fraud. Many individuals exploited the system by presenting the scalps of other animals or multiple scalps fashioned from a single gopher. County clerks, often unfamiliar with distinguishing different species, inadvertently paid out fraudulent claims. The high volume of submissions, combined with fraudulent claims, quickly drained public funds. As a result, many bounty programs were unsustainable and eventually discontinued.

In place of bounties, governments began promoting poisoning programs, providing farmers with affordable or free poison bait and instructions on effective use. These programs proved far more cost-effective and successful in reducing gopher populations compared to bounty systems. Trapping also remained a viable control method, particularly in cases where gopher populations were small or localized. It was especially favored by farmers practicing integrated pest management (IPM), as trapping is a non-toxic alternative to pesticides. Organic growers, who avoid chemical controls, often rely on trapping as a primary method to manage gophers.

The development and use of gopher traps grew alongside the decline of bounty systems, with numerous patents for traps emerging in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Although the use of traps has diminished with the rise of more modern control methods, it remains relevant in specific contexts. For instance, trapping is still useful for clearing gophers that survive poisoning or invade from neighboring properties. Furthermore, as certain areas place increasing emphasis on non-toxic pest management solutions, the role of gopher traps may continue to evolve.

In summary, the history of gopher control in the United States has evolved from ineffective and costly bounty programs to more efficient methods like poisoning and trapping. While traps may not be as widely used as they once were, they still play a crucial role in integrated pest management, particularly for farmers seeking non-chemical solutions to gopher infestations.

Source: ONE HUNDRED YEARS OF POCKET GOPHER TRAPS AND TRAPPING; REX E. MARSH, Department of Wildlife, Fish, and Conservation Biology, University of California, Davis, California 95616.