SOME REASONS FOR FAILURE OF FISH PROTECTIVE 
LEGISLATION AND SOME SUGGESTED REMEDIES. 
od 
By OREGON MILTON DENNIS, 
Former State Game Warden of Maryland. 
od 
Mr. PRESIDENT, LADIES, AND GENTLEMEN: In speaking on this subject I 
want it distinctly understood in the beginning that, while my language will 
appear to be harsh and my criticism severe with reference to some causes for 
the failure of the passage of proper and effective fish protective legislation, I am 
dealing with this subject in generalities, and without particular reference to any 
person or protective association. I have come to the conclusions which follow 
after very mature deliberation, and shall deal with this, as I have with every 
other matter with which I have had to do, in an honest and fearless manner, 
my sole purpose being to aid in fish protection and to point out some of the 
reasons why it has failed. A long experience as secretary and counsel of a 
large protective association and as the state game warden of Maryland, as 
well as my legislative experience, has, I believe, fully qualified me to express 
some opinions on the subject-matter of this paper. Of course, this experience 
has been gained in my own state, and what I shall say will deal largely with 
the conditions in that state. 
The political division of Maryland through the representation of county 
members in the legislature places the control of legislation within the power 
of the counties; notwithstanding the fact that while about one-half of the popu- 
lation is centered in Baltimore city the latter has only about one-fourth of the 
delegates. I mention this because protective influences originate very largely in 
the city, and the state’s chief protective association is there, composed of men 
who, whether intelligently or not, frame the bills that are presented to the legis- 
laturefor action. I say intelligently, because while this association includes some’ 
of the wealthiest and best of our citizens, its enthusiasm for protection of both 
game and fish and the bills framed by it are largely based on the selfish rea- 
sons of sportsmen, and largely without regard to intelligent conclusions with 
reference to the rights of the commercial fishermen, whose vote is sufficiently 
large in tide-water sections of our state to control the electorate. This being 
189 
