190 BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF FISHERIES. 
true, the county members of the legislature, as well as the fishermen themselves, 
look with suspicion upon any measure presented to the legislature which has for 
its purpose the protection of fish and game when such measure is presented by 
city men. 
Growing out of this condition (about two.years ago) a fishermen’s protective 
association was formed in Maryland for the distinct purpose of fighting the city 
association, on the ground that the latter was unfair and that its only interest 
in protection, it was believed, was to secure to the angler a good day’s fishing 
without regard to the commercial fisherman’s interest. This condition grew 
out of a policy of the game protective association of introducing measures 
abolishing the use of all sorts of nets, or so restricting their use that the com- 
mercial fisherman would be put out of business. I am happy to say, however, 
that during the past year, I believe largely through my own efforts as state 
game warden, the two associations have united on a number of measures for 
fish protection, though without specific results. 
Unfortunately, the selfish interest of one class and the suspicions of another 
are largely the reason for the failure of proper fish protective legislation. The 
angler goes to the legislature with a bill based on his idea of what the law should 
be, and that idea is usually the prohibition of the use of all sorts of nets which 
will interfere with his sport; an other class, the commercial fishermen, prepare 
a bill to protect them in the use of the sort of nets with which they fish, and still 
another set of fishermen have a bill to protect them in their method. The 
result is that the legislative committee before whom these bills go is pulled and 
hauled and besieged and worked upon by the various interests to such an extent 
that it becomes disgusted and pigeonholes all the bills, so that none is passed. 
Another reason is that while the state of Maryland spends thousands of 
dollars for fish culture it persistently refuses to make any appropriation for, or to 
give the state warden department any material assistance in, the enforcement 
of such laws as we now have; and while the state navy is charged by law to 
enforce the laws for fish protection, the character of its boats prevents them from 
going into shallow waters to do any work even if time permitted to divert the 
boats from oyster protection to do this. 
What I have said above is but the foundation for specific reasons which I 
shall give for failure of protective legislation, and which in my opinion can be 
doe tue to the following, to wit: 
. Up to this time it has been absolutely impossible to get the tide- otc 
Be to agree on any bills, and, in my judgment, even if proper laws 
were enacted, under the system in our state they would absolutely fail of 
enforcement. 
2. I declare, next to the above reason, that the greatest reason for non- 
passage of fish protective bills is the action and influence of the duck gunners 
