44 FISTI AND 0AM E COMMISSION 



reduction phmt, desio-ned expressly to evade the State's laws, by operat- 

 ing without any restriction just outside the State's jurisdiction, where 

 they take the fish from the same supply as the shore plants. They use 

 the' State's harbor facilities for landing their products and for refuge. 

 The fishermen employed by them use our harbors to which they return 

 after each night's fishing." It is even impossible to prevent them from 

 making their catches inside the state waters. 



Recognizing tlie injustice of the laws which prohibited the plants 

 wliicli ojierated under state jurisdiction from taking sardines for reduc- 

 lioii purposes, while the floating reduction plants could operate without 

 limit on sardines taken from the same schools on which the shore plants 

 depended, the legislature gave the Division of Fish and Game authority 

 to permit shore plants to take sardines for reduction. 



This was not a solution of the problem for, if unlimited permits 

 are given to shore plants to take sardines for reduction, it is quite 

 evident the sardine supply will be soon exhausted. On the other hand, 

 to limit the reduction operations of shore plants in an attempt to save 

 the sardine supply from eventual destruction simply increases the 

 number of floating plants and the rapid expansion of the reduction 

 industry is not stopped. These offshore floating plants are now rapidly 

 increasing in numbers and capacity. More fishermen are engaging in 

 the business; more and larger boats are being added to the fishing fleet, 

 thus still further expanding a fishery already greatly over-capitalized. 

 In other words, there is no adequate control over this great industry 

 and a very valuable state resource is headed for destruction. 



It is obvious that the only solution to the problem is to bring the 

 floating plants under the same rules and regulations as the shore plants. 

 The better way to bring this about would be for the state, through 

 legislation, to control sardine fishermen and sardine fishing boats which 

 must make use of state waters and harbors ; but so far attempts to get 

 such legislation have been defeated by the floating plant interests. An 

 attempt to get similar legislation in the last congress was defeated by 

 the same interests. 



MACKEREL 



]\IackiM'cl caiiiiiug began in California 20 years ago but the indus- 

 lcv was iiuiiiiixii'laul prior to the year 1928. (See Fig. 6.) The efforts 

 of canners 1o build up a market for canned mackerel were finally 

 rewarded and 887,000 cases were disposed of in 1928. In 1929, the 

 year before the fiiuincial depression, the mackerel pack was 611,000 

 cases. The aiiiount of mackerel used that year for canning and in the 

 frf'sh fisli mai-kcts was about 60,000.000 pounds. For three years there- 

 after, (luring the first pai-t of the depression, the take of mackerel was 

 quite small again. The year 1933 saw a sudden revival of the industry, 

 with a catcli of almost 70,000.000 jjounds, exceeding the peak year of 

 192f» by 10.000,000 pounds. The size of this catch is better appreci- 

 ated when compai-ed with the mackerel catch on the Atlantic coast of 

 the United States which has not equaled 50,000,000 pounds in over 20 

 years. 



To meet the eaiined jnaekei-el demand, practically all of the south- 

 ern California, and part of the Monterey, fish canners took up mackerel 

 canning in earnest. Very little change was necessary to equip the large 

 tuna and sardine canneries for handling mackerel as a side line. The 



