Sa ee 
PROGRESS IN BIOLOGICAL INQUIRIES, 1926 629 
mercial utilization of the water power would? Hence the movement to protect 
Niagara Falls against utilization by electric-power concerns. 
fn Texas we have a powerful sportsmen’s organization, whose self-appointed 
duty is the guardianship of the remains of the fish life. They have decided 
that every Texas citizen should have the privilege of visiting coastal waters 
and of fishing therein. But there is no fun in fishing when you can’t eatch 
fish. There is only one thing to do, and that is to conserve the poor fish by 
preventing their being caught in wholesale quantities. It is easy just to close all 
suitable water against commercial fishermen, and this, gentlemen, has been 
done in Texas. 
We have an interesting economic problem before us. Would it not be of 
far greater economic value to Texas to encourage these thousands of sports- 
men to follow a pastime that leads to the building of pleasure resorts, to the 
-creation of many new occupations, and to the great advancement in real 
estate values rather than to allow a relatively small commercial fishery to 
interfere, at least in a psychological way, with the highly profitable trade of 
“soaking suckers?” That is a question that should interest some of you. Mr. 
Holmes suggested to me yesterday that a Similar situation exists in Oregon 
in regard to the razor clam. The economic value of nonprofessional clam 
diggers in the community is apparently greater than that of the clams 
themselves. 
How are we to distinguish true conservation from the vast amount of propa- 
ganda that pours forth from professional conservationists? You know they 
exist. They have demoralized the marine fisheries of the largest State in 
the Union; and, I understand, have caused trouble elsewhere. From a purely 
present-day economic standpoint they may be correct in their ideas. It is 
necessary that thought and attention be given to the problem. 
Mr. Hormrs. It might be well for me to qualify the example in 
Oregon that Mr. Pearson mentioned. I think the conditions there 
are somewhat different than those he related in Texas. There prob- 
ably is more justification for the experiment and the tourists’ atti- 
tude in trying to conserve the razor clam for their use; it could not 
support a very large industry, whereas it does bring in a very large 
number of tourists from every part of the country. 
Mr. Serre. I would like to know whether the expansion of the 
commercial fisheries in Texas is really incompatible with equal en- 
joyment of the sportsmen’s privileges in those waters. I do not see 
how it necessarily follows that you need to stop commercial fishing 
entirely if restrictions are sufficient to perpetuate the stock of fish. 
It should be possible to urge some reasonable degree of regulation, 
which would permit both factions to enjoy their occupation or sport. 
Mr. Pearson. I pointed out that the sportsmen were not alone re- 
sponsible for the decadent state of commercial fishing. There is a 
class of “ poor” fishermen, who can afford only a few hooks, who at 
times make from $30 to $50 a day with hook and line, and they also 
oppose net fishing. 
Mr. Rapcuirre. I should like to make a few comments on the South 
Atlantic investigations. I think you are all impressed with the great 
diversity of the work in which the bureau is concerned in this region, 
including terrapin farming and stocking with fish to destroy mos- 
quito larve. 
I do not know whether it was modesty on the part of our chairman 
in not calling for comment on his paper on the mullet. I want to 
call attention to one point: In Doctor Bigelow’s region, when you 
speak of fish you mean cod; when you come down to the South 
Atlantic and the Gulf, you mean mullet. The mullet is the important 
fish of the South. If it ever is marketed extensively outside of that 
area and others learn what a good fish it is, there won’t be any left 
