PROGRESS IN BIOLOGICAL INQUIRIES, 1926 ola 
investigator to separate the economic from the biological causes in 
the case of any change in the quantities of fish caught. 
Mr. Ravcurre. The outstanding point revealed by Mr. Sette’s 
discuss.on is the need for continuous, regular statistics for each year. 
If we had regular statistics, interpreted by economic conditions that 
we know about at the time, then we would have some idea where 
we were heading in this matter. 
In 1921 the whaling interests stopped all operations on the Pacific 
coast. It was simply for economic reasons—there were just as many 
whales. The same factor applies to many of the fisheries that have 
come into prom:nence in later years. Prior to 1890 there was no 
demand for many of the fish that now are important. The fisher- 
man did not bring them in. The economic factor is important. 
Mr. Serre. When you really come down to the basis of this matter 
of yield of fisheries, the entire thing is economic. It is an economic 
impulse that causes men to fish for profit, and if investigators ignore 
the economic phase of the situation, they can’t possibly explain 
what is happening. 
Mr. Hicerns. I have always felt that there was a great mass of 
information concerning fisheries that failed in getting over or pro- 
ducing results. I have not been able to decide whether it is because 
of the form of the investigation or solely because of the lack of an 
intermediary between the technical investigator and the fishery 
administrator—a go-between of some sort, an agency consciously 
developing and applying the results of theoretical research to fishery 
problems, to the actual formulation of regulations for the conserva- 
tion or rehabilitation of a fishery. I believe the fishery investigators 
themselves necessarily must cons:der the final application of their 
investigations to the formulation of laws and regulations for the 
protection of fisheries, and in order that we may gain some more 
concrete notion of the problems of fishery administrators and of the 
actual application of fishery regulations I have asked Mr. N. B. 
Scofield, in charge of the department of commercial fisheries of the 
California Fish and Game Commission, to discuss some of these 
problems. 
PROBLEMS OF THE FISHERIES ADMINISTRATOR 
By N. B. Scorreip 
In charge commercial fisheries, California Fish and Game Commission. 
I can speak only as regards our experiences in California, some of which 
I will give with the hope that the problems that have arisen there and the 
way in which we have attempted to meet them will offer some benefit to those 
who may have similar problems to meet, or to those who are in a position to 
advise where the work of conserving the fisheries is in process of organization. 
The first problem has to do with organization. At the present time the 
States have jurisdiction over their fisheries, and for that reason are responsible 
for the care and protection of these fisheries. The majority of the States have 
fish and game commissions, whose business it is to conserve the fish and game 
resources of the State. The tendency is to divide the work of conserving the 
commercial fisheries among separate commissions, and in a number of States 
we have one commission looking after the game and sport fish and another com- 
mission looking after the commercial fisheries. 
I believe it is a mistake to separate the two interests, for the antipathy that 
exists between the sportsman and the commercial fishman is thus intensified. 
In a State where the two factions are interested in the same species of fish 
