194 U. S. BUREAU OF FISHERIES 



tunity to do so unobserved, despite the efforts of the State deputies 

 to enforce the law. During the summer of 1922 a biologist from the 

 State university conducted a survey of the coastal waters, studying 

 the spawning habits of the commercial species. His reports were 

 instrumental in the abolishing by the thirty-eighth legislature of the 

 law prohibiting summer seining, as the redfish, which the law was 

 primarily designed to protect, showed no indication of spawning in 

 inside waters. All other laws, however, remained in force. 



It is interesting to note that there was a return to the old question 

 first written of in 1890. To quote W. W. Boyd, commissioner, in his 

 report for the fiscal year ended August 31, 1924, "The belief among 

 sport fishermen that commercial fishing is depleting the supply of 

 fish on the Texas coast is not borne out by the records of this office. 

 The production of this year surpasses that of the preceding year by 

 172,724 pounds." Mr. Boyd, however, does recommend that the 

 next legislature reinstate the closed season on summer seining. He 

 goes even farther, saying that all nets of any kind should be kept out 

 of the waters during the summer months, and as his reason offers a 

 popular theory that the long grass, which shelters small fish and food 

 organisms, reaches maturity in the summer months, and that the 

 lead lines of the seines break off this grass, which becomes entangled 

 in the meshes of the net and prevents the small fish from going through. 

 He says also that the stinging jellyfish are abundant during the sum- 

 mer, and when they come in contact with a fish's gills the fish is 

 quickly killed by the poison. Mr. Boyd writes : " The enormous waste 

 of fish life in our coastal waters during the summer months is hard to 

 estimate." The next legislature, however, did not close waters to 

 summer seining, as recommended by this commissioner, but the laws 

 protecting the passes and "breeding areas" were strictly enforced. 



Effects of fishery regulations. — The reaction to fishery legislation of 

 those engaged in the fish business of Texas can be summed up in one 

 word — dissatisfaction. To quote W. W. Boyd, State commissioner, 

 in his 1922 report, "The fish and oyster laws are very unpopular with 

 the fishing fraternity along the coast, and we have incurred enmity 

 because our deputies insist on the law being observed and burn the 

 seines found in closed waters, as directed by law." In the same 

 report Mr. Boyd stated: " The fishermen at Point Isabel, finding out 

 that we were in earnest in enforcing the law, decided to observe the 

 closed season on drag seines, and not having any of the strike or 

 trammel nets practically no fishing was done during June, July, 

 and August. As an evidence of this the tax receipts for August, 1921, 

 totaled $240.34 and for the same month this year $6.69." 



It is. easy to see why the fishermen would resent the law, when it 

 struck directly at their personal property and welfare; but their per- 

 sonal resentment toward the fish and oyster laws is only a part of the 

 widespread discontent. 



J. R. Jefferson, commissioner, in his report for 1920, in speaking of 

 the lack of true scientific knowledge as regards the habits of fish and 

 the protective measures that should be based on such knowledge, 

 says: 



About the only protection we offer them is to prohibit the use of seines during 

 the summer months and the sale of small fish. True, the commissioner is author- 

 ized to close against seining any of our coastal waters whenever he believes it is 

 best for the protection and increase of fish life, and this law has been resorted 

 to in a few cases where certain waters were known to be particularly well suited 



