390 XJ. S. BUREAU OF FISHERIES 



themselves to this move has been unfavorable, apparently in recog- 

 nition of the fact that there need be no duplication or overlapping, if 

 the work is properly coordinated. The following statements illustrate 

 the extent to which, and the methods by which, efficiency and economy 

 are being achieved by such coordination. 



Practical procedure of cooperation in the rearing or planting of fish 

 has already been placed in effect with 27 States. A number of States 

 (Connecticut, Michigan, Montana, New York, and Idaho) review 

 Federal applications before delivery in order that the plants may not 

 conflict with State stocking policies. In a number of other States 

 (Virginia, Georgia, Alississippi, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Indi- 

 ana, and Ohio) the actual handling of the fish is on a joint basis, fish 

 from Federal hatcheries being used to fill State applications or vice 

 versa. By this means the Bureau is relieved of distributing costs and 

 fish are planted according to actual needs. 



With regard to actual propagation work, in several instances the 

 Bureau has pooled its facilities with other agencies for mutual benefit, 

 Tliis is true in the case of shad propagation in South Carolina, the 

 whitefish and pike perch hatching carried on at Put in Bay, Ohio, and 

 the county hatchery system in Monroe County, N. Y., where the 

 Bureau operates an establishment which the local authorities have 

 constructed. At Walhalla, S. C, unified eft'orts of the Bureau, the 

 Forest Service, and local sportsmen have resulted in the construction 

 of trout-rearing pools to be used in holding trout for distribution in 

 surrounding waters. Cooperation with the State of Connecticut in 

 the collection and distribution of smallmouth bass fry from closed 

 waters was continued. Several of the Western States are still coop- 

 erating in the collection of black-spotted trout, being compensated by 

 receiving a portion of the eggs. In Oregon and Washington the 

 employees of the State and Federal hatcheries have closely coordi- 

 nated their respective activities. The close relationships with the 

 fish-cultural activities in the States of Maryland, Virginia, and West 

 Virginia, were a continuation and extension of former policies. 



Wherever the activities of the division have touched those of the 

 United States Forest Service, the National Park Service, and the 

 Bureau of Biological Survey, there has been evident a most gratifying 

 willingness to cooperate. The two former agencies have aided by 

 enabling the Bureau to procure from their warehouses supplies and 

 materials needed for the Bureau's field work. This has resulted in 

 decided economies. The Bureau of Biological Survey has directed 

 its land-purchasing program in the Upper Mississippi Refuge so as to 

 further the Bureau's fish-cultural work in that area as far as circum- 

 stances will permit. A full recital of the details of the various fields 

 in which there has been joint and mutually beneficial action would be 

 too voluminous. 



An act passed by Congress in March 1934, known as the Coordi- 

 nating Bill (Pub. No. 121) gave formal recognition to the necessity for 

 closer relationships on the part of Federal agencies whose functions 

 have to do with wildlife resources. Such organizations as the Bureau 

 of Indian Affairs and the Reclamation Service are required to consult 

 with the Bureau of Fisheries and/or the Bureau of Biological Survey 

 when the welfare of fish and game is affected by the functions of the 

 first-named organization. The act further authorizes investigation 

 of the pollution problem and calls for a program for the protection of 



