176 CALIFORNIA PISH AND GAME, 



If you are inclined to criticise the Fish and Game 

 Commission, read the following criticisms and the 

 defense. 



If you believe in the work of the Commission, 

 inform yourself more fully as to the accomplish- 

 ments of the past few years. 



ACCUSATIONS AND THE DEFENSE. 



Resolution by Mr. Eden, introduced in the State Legislature April 1, 1919, and 

 referred to Committee on Governmental Efficiency and Economy. 



Whereas, The Fish and Game Commission of this state, and its several members, 

 officers and assistants, are, by virtue of the very large power and authority given to 

 them by law, in a position to exert great influence for or against legislation pending 

 before this Assembly ; and 



Whereas, It is said that certain of said officers and members have in fact sought 

 to influence pending legislation ; and 



Whereas, Said Fish and Game Commission and certain of its members, assistants 

 and employees have been derelict in the performance of the duties imposed upon them 

 by law ; now, therefore, be it 



Resolved, That the Committee on Efficiency and Economy of this Assembly be and 

 it is hereby, directed to make an immediate and thorough investigation of the following 

 specific matters : 



1. To ascertain what, if any, fishing clubs, gun clubs and private game preserves, 

 any of the said commissioners, or the officers, assistants or employees of said Fish and 

 Game Commission, are afBliated with ; and whether or not any of said officers, assist- 

 ants or employees have been, by reason of such affiliation, perniciously active in 

 supporting or opposing any legislation now pending before this Assembly ; and whether 

 or not they have shown any favoritism, in any manner, towards any gun or fishing 

 club members ; and whether or not they have, by reason of their said membership, 

 sought to set up and perpetuate in this state, against the interests and wishes of the 

 common people, the European system of a monopoly in the control and use of wild 

 fish and game, which is peculiarly the property of all the people. 



2. Why it is that within the past nine years said commission has, without any 

 satisfactory explanation, dismissed three certain executive officers of said commission, 

 each of whom was reputed to be a faithful and efficient public servant. 



3. How much of the time of the present attorney of said commission is devoted 

 to the duties of his state office, and how much of it is devoted to his own private law 

 practice ; the latter of which is said to be very large and lucrative. 



4. Why said commission collected from the people of the State, during the four 

 years ending June 30, 1918, the enormous sum of $837,409.25, of which the sum of 

 $708,310.75 was expended ; whether or not said sum so spent was not unwisely and 

 extravagantly used. Also recommend some legislation that will reduce the amount 

 of money collected by said commission at least $:!0,000 per annum. Also to ascertain 

 if it is not advisable that the expenditure of such a large fund should be made by the 

 governing body of the State, upon appropriations, instead of by said commission, as 

 is now done, without any control of the Legislatui'e whatever. 



5. Why it is that for the two years ending June 30, 1918, the police work of the 

 commission fell off about 15 per cent over the preceding two years (see last report to 

 Governor, page 88) ; notwithstanding said commission is charged with the enforcement 

 of laws for the preservation of fish and game, and notwithstanding more people hunted 

 and fished during said period ending June 30, 1918, than before ; and notwithstanding 

 reports of frequent and flagrant violations of the fish and game laws were reported 

 in the press and otherwise throughout the state. 



0. Why said commission expended the enormous sum of $68,272.21 to establish and 

 a large sum since for additions to a trout hatchery in Inyo County, for the purpose, 

 as avowed by the said commission, of stocking the streams of southern California and 

 the western slope of the southern Sierra Nevadas. when it was obvious to any person 

 that said location could not be a success for the following reasons : 



«. That there were no waters nearby needing to be stocked. 



1). That it was impossible to obtain a sufiicient supply of trout eggs in that vicinity 

 for hatching purposes. 



c. The great distance the hatchery product must be transported at heavy expense. 



d. The hatchery product must be transported through the beat of the Mojave 

 desert before they reach the waters intended to be stocked. 



