136 
him. When unselfish persons take an 
active interest in the enforcement of game 
laws we will hear fewer statements re- 
garding alleged violations, and game will 
receive proper protection. 
SHAD BECOME SCARCE. 
As predicted by the Fish and Game 
Commission, the shad catch has been far 
below normal, owing to excessive fishing 
of the past few years. Five years ago 
shad fishermen were able to catch 5000 
pounds a day. They obtained but fifty 
cents for a 200-pound box. Three years 
ago fishermen obtained one-half cent for 
buck shad and two cents for roe. This 
past year the average catch made by a 
fisherman is about 400 pounds. He now 
obtains three cents a pound for buck and 
five cents for roe shad. 
FISH ESCAPE FROM BOULDIN 
ISLAND. 
The completion of a levee around 
Bouldin Island, on the Lower San Joa- 
quin River, impounded great numbers of 
bass and shad, as the island has been 
under water for some time. Fearing 
that large numbers of valuable food fish 
would be destroyed because unable to 
reach the river, the Fish and Game Com- 
mission decided to allow fishermen to take 
the fish in nets. The island was opened 
to fishermen at 9 o’clock on May 21, and 
many fishermen from Pittsburg were on 
hand. After all of the work of laying 
the nets, one of the largest catches noted 
was composed of two shad and two carp. 
The fishermen were quickly convinced 
that all of the fish had escaped and left 
immediately for other fishing grounds. 
Thus ended the controversy as to the 
large numbers of food fish which would 
be destroyed when the levee was com- 
pleted. It may be necessary at a later 
time to rescue some of the smaller fish 
which have been impounded, but it has 
been clearly demonstrated that the food 
fish have already escaped into the river. 
A DANGEROUS STATEMENT. 
The following is an extract from an 
editorial which appeared in a_ leading 
newspaper of San Francisco: 
“This much is certain that 
lot of nonsense talked on the 
there is a 
subject of 
CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME, 
game preservation. In whose _ interest 
is it protected? Not in that of the great 
mass with little opportunity for indulging 
in the luxury of killing things and in no 
way benefited by game as a table decora- 
tion. Nor is it in the interests of those 
engaged as farmers or fruit growers. 
That birds included in the protected list 
are destructive of crops can not be denied, 
and as our established rural industries 
are of infinitely greater importance-than 
the pastime of sportsmen or the senti- 
mentalities of the nature-worshipers our 
game laws should be amended so as to 
permit the destruction of all destructive 
creatures.” 
We trust that our readers are not 
convinced of the truth of these statements. 
Let us analyze some of them. Many per- 
sons are impressed by statements calling 
attention to the fact that the poor man 
has little chance to secure wild game. 
The fact is that the poor man has a far 
better chance of obtaining and utilizing 
game for food than in obtaining his share 
of use in publie roads, public parks and 
public buildings, all of which belong to 
the people and for which each citizen is 
annually taxed. ‘The utilization of these 
latter assets are far more dependent on 
wealth than is game. 
What if we applied the rule suggested 
in the last statement that all destructive 
creatures be destroyed? We would soon 
discover that we were ‘cutting off our 
noses to spite our faces,’ for if every- 
thing has its rightful place in the balance 
of nature then the more creatures that 
are destroyed the greater is the balance 
upset. Controlling wild creatures is a 
different thing from destroying them 
utterly. Then, too, it must be remem- 
bered that some of our bird and animal 
pests do not rightly belong in our fauna. 
The house rat, house mouse and English 
sparrow are deserving of extermination. 
Native animals and birds may need to be 
controlled so that our interests may be 
cared for, but they are deserving of per- 
petuation, not of extinction. 
Every conservationist must help point 
out the fallacy of such arguments. Any- 
one who reads the game laws knows that 
the farmer is definitely given the chance 
to protect his crops. 
