1134 U- S. BUEEAU OF FISHERIES 



In consulting these data, recognition should be given to several 

 important considerations. Owing to the fact that the various States 

 do not utilize identical calendar periods for their fiscal years, the 

 figures cited do not cover a specific period but comprise the output 

 for the latest fiscal year for which complete data are available. The 

 period covered may be a fiscal year ending June 30 or at some other 

 date, or it may represent the calendar year ending December 31, 1929. 

 The reports, therefore, are approximate and cover an average aggre- 

 gate output for the entire country. 



Furthermore, direct comparison of the numerical output of the 

 different States should not be made without a clear realization of the 

 fish distribution practices followed. In many of the Eastern States, 

 such as Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Jersey, etc., 

 the total output of trout and bass may appear to be limited in com- 

 parison with other States. This is due to the fact that the State 

 policy is to distribute large-sized fish approaching legal size ; and 

 the above-mentioned States, together with others, may be among the 

 foremost in conservation work and universally recognized as pro- 

 viding excellent angling by virtue of the above-mentioned distribu- 

 tion policy. The figures, therefore, are more useful to enable a com- 

 parison of each State's production in contrast to its own efforts in 

 previous years rather than for comparison as between States on a 

 competitive basis. 



The aggregate production of 4,584,233,249 represents an increase 

 of over 500,000,000 above the total for last year. The increase 

 appears largelv in the output of commercial species, the production 

 of trout having declined from 255,050,612 to 241,786,864. Owing 

 to a different method of tabulation the output of bass can not be 

 compared with that of the previous year. In classifying the various 

 groups, the bureau accepted the allocations to the heads " commercial 

 species " and " other game fishes," as made by the States themselves. 

 For example, in the Great Lakes States the wall-eyed pike may be 

 classified in the former group, while in other States it is considered 

 a game fish. Similar conditions exist with regard to many other 

 species, and the same variety may be listed under either of the two 

 above headings but there will, of course, be no duplication. It is 

 felt that the opinions of the State authorities and the fisliermen 

 themselves should determine the group in wdiich any gi^'en species 

 should be included rather than any arbitrary conclusion by the 

 bureau. 



In view of the very general practice of lumping fishing and hunt- 

 ing licenses together, for residents at least, under the heading of a 

 combination license, it is manifestly impossible to secure definite fig- 

 ures on the actual number of licensed anglers. Data on the issuance 

 of fishing licenses, therefore, cover all classes of licenses which carry, 

 individually or in combination, the privilege of fishing. Not all in- 

 dividuals w^ho took out these licenses did so for the purpose of an- 

 gling. At the same time, there is a very large number of sport 

 fishermen in many States who are not required to possess a license. 

 Landowners and members of their families constitute a very large 

 group in this category. In some States licenses are required only 

 for angling with artificial lures. The figure 5,318,104, therefore, rep- 

 resents the number of potential anglers only, and has no definite 

 value otherwise. In view of the large numbers exempted from the 



