PROGRESS IN BIOLOGICAL INQUIRIES, 1926 577 
than the committees were accustomed to getting, and that is not saying very 
much. 
The fisheries laws, of California at least, are highly complicated, and the 
committees are glad to have State men with technical fisheries knowledge, as 
well as knowledge of game, continually present at the sessions, and the amount 
of work they turn over to these men would surprise you. Committee members 
will get technical letters from their constituents which they are unable to 
answer. They need advice as to how certain measures will appeal to their 
constituents. At all times we have been careful not to appear partisan, except, 
possibly, on the side of conservation. We are careful to give all the facts as 
we know them, so that the committee may draw its own conclusions. But, 
usually, members of the committee wish to know what our personal opinion is. 
The committees have more and more come to rely on the representatives of the 
commission, and there is no denying that the opinions of those representatives 
earry a great deal of weight. What we have done in this respect in California 
I think any State can do. These men, acting for the fish and game commission 
at Sacramento, are not politicians, nor are they lobbyists in the usual accepted 
sense. By this method most of the absurdities in the fisheries laws have been 
eliminated and good, protective measures have been adopted. 
The law under which our commission was established was antiquated and 
did not meet the new conditions. Under the old law creating the commission 
the expenditure of money for scientific investigations could not be justified, 
and I believe this fault can be found in most of the old laws creating fish com- 
missions and probably in some of the new ones as well. We presented a bill 
to the legislature which made it the duty of the commission to carry on investi- 
gations and to determine what measures are advisable for the conservation of 
any fishery. This bill passed without any opposition. 
I do not see how any State fisheries department can get very far unless it has 
influence at the State capitol. I believe any fisheries department can gain the 
necessary influence by keeping men in attendance at the legislature who are 
honest and have tact and are scientifically trained. They should know the 
fisheries, of course. The advice and help of a lobbyist is a valuable asset to 
any State commission. ‘That, I believe, will hold true for a Federal department 
or bureau. 
To look back now over the past history of the California department of com- 
mercial fisheries it appears that chance was the controlling factor. At the very 
beginning we had a vague idea that the basis of our fisheries work must be 
accurate and complete statistics. We got a bill through during the 1915 session 
of the legislature that required fish dealers and canners to give the commission 
a monthly record of all fish received. This gave way to a much better law 
four years later which gives to the commission a carbon copy of every receipt 
issued to fishermen and which contain all the data desired. The same law 
required every fishing boat to register and to give a description of the boat and 
the gear used. 
At the second legislative session after our organization we got through a fish- 
eries tax which, together with the commercial fishing license already in exist- 
ence, gave us adequate funds to enlarge the department. 
We had the support of most of the fisheries people in these measures. The 
southern California tuna canners were for us. It so happened that the tuna 
fishermen were hard pressed to find bait—sardines or anchovies—and about the 
only place where the bait could be found was in the water around Catalina 
Island, which the sportsmen had succeeded a few years before in closing against 
the use of nets. The tuna canners wanted part of the island open for bait 
fishing, and they wanted and needed our help. 
In the summer of 1915, while the Pacific division of the American associa- 
tion was meeting at San Diego, an afternoon was set aside for some papers 
and a discussion of tuna problems. One of the canners stated there that the 
tuna canners would like to know from the scientists how much fishing the 
albacore could stand without exhausting the supply. He said that the schools 
of albacore appeared to be getting smaller, although the fishery was then only 
two or three years old. Hach year additional canneries were being built and 
the old canneries were being increased in size. He asked the very practical 
question: “Is there any way to tell how many albacore can be taken each 
year without ruining the supply?” If the canner could know that, he said, 
then he and others would know whether they should increase their investment 
66552—28-—_5 
