fc> 



260 



^eneral features of the bill, and I believe he would have approver) the bill if it 

 had been passed. I believe the bill which was lost in the last legislature will be 

 passed in the next one. 



Mr. Amsden : Mr. Chairman, to make a beginning on the line of action that 

 we want to take in preparing some matter to hand into our main body, I suggest 

 that we take section 132 of this code and discuss it, hearing from Pennsylvania, 

 from Michigan, and from New York State, and any one else who wishes to 

 speak about it Section 132 of the code reads as follows : 



Section 182 of the Act for the protection and preservation of birds and game. 



Lake Ontario, Lake Erie and Niagara River, fishing with nets within certain 

 distances from shore prohibited. No tish shall be fished for, caught or killed in 

 any manner or by any device except angling in the water of Lake Erie, within 

 one mile of the shores, or within one-half mile of the shore of any of the islands, 

 therein. Nor in Lake Ontario within one mile of the shore, or within one mile 

 of the shore of any of the islands therein, except in the county of Oswego they 

 may be taken one-half mile from shore. Nor shall fish taken contrary to the pro- 

 visions of this section be knowingly possessed. Pound net fishing in the waters 

 of Lake Erie is hereby prohibited. 



Chairman: I would suggest in addition to what Mr. Amsden has suggested, 

 that the Commissioners from Ontario and from Michigan, take this Code as dis- 

 cussed and look it all over and see how much of it, and what part of it, they 

 will assent to as it is, and report to the central committee, and where their pro- 

 visions are different from ours, and then they and the New York committee 

 will confer. The section Mr. Amsden has read is the principal part to be legis- 

 lated upon, the great lakes and the St. Lawrence Piver, Lake Ontario, Lake 

 Erie, Niagara River, and then the question of the meshes of nets in Lake Erie 

 and Ontario ; the meshes of nets in Lake Erie and Ontario should not be less 

 than 4| inches. 



Mr. Ford : I see that that is practically the law of Pennsylvania to-day with 

 reference to Lake Erie, with the exception that w^e do not allow fishing within a 

 mile and a-half distance from the shore ; the result of that is to give the fish a 

 chance to spawn. 



Mr. Post : I think any course that would tend to detract from the work of 

 the States is injurious to any end we all have in view. We can put into the 

 waters there at an expense which the State of Michigan is willing to assume, if 

 let alone, two hundred million of whitefish every year. Wisconsin has done very 

 well ; Illinois has practically turned her work over to the United States, and 

 they have quit it ; Ohio has practically done the same — they have quit, and turned 

 it over to the United States Government at Sandusky. Here, for instance, 

 is your great Lake Ontario ; why may not the United States Commis- 

 sioneis and the State of New York w^ork in harmony, and with the money 

 you can get, stock it with whitefish? We have taken as active measure- 

 ments as we can with reference to Lake Superior, the very head of these 

 crreat waters, and which is being greatly depleted. In that action one of 

 the strongest arguments before the Legistatuie when any objection is made to 

 representative remedies is, wh}' the State of Michigan is paying tw^enty-five to 

 thirty thousand dollars a year, and here are these fishermen robbing them every 

 year, taking that away from the Legislature. Suppose it was undei'stood tlie 

 o-reat United States had taken in hand the matter of stocking those waters 

 with commercial fish, don't you see that in the State of jMichigan — and it has a 

 great deal of money invested — we w^ould at once lose the lever we have; it would 



