& 



lU FISH AND GAME COMMISSION 



The act was extended for another two-year period. 



Another act reqnired that, in lieu of payment of annual taxes, the 

 coiuniission must reimburse counties, annuall}', an amount equal to the 

 taxes assessed against such property as purchased at the time the land is 

 acquired and used for public shooting grounds. (Chapter 1046, Stats. 

 1949.) 



In the future, all liunting and fishing licenses sliall have attached 

 thereto the number of shipping tags, as permitted by the commission ; 

 such tags will permit the licensee to ship by common carrier only limited 

 quantities of fish or game. 



The fee for a nonresident hunting license was increased to $25; the 

 fee for a nonresident deer tag to $10 ; the fee for a noncitizen hunting 

 license to $50 ; the fee for a nonresident sport fishing license to $10 ; and 

 the fee for a noncitizen sport fishing license to $25. 



The use of pheasant license tags was re-established, with a fee of $1 

 for the same number of tags as the number of pheasants a hunter might 

 legally possess. 



Probably the most outstanding legislation was the act establishing 

 "Cooperative Hunting Areas," which should lead to more friendly 

 relationships between property owner, sportsman, and commission. The 

 owner supplies the land at no fee, the commission releases pheasants and 

 supervises and patrols each area, the sportsman has hunting privileges 

 at a fee not to exceed $2 per clay. 



Several chapters were added to the State Water Code all relating 

 to pollution and its correction. A State Water Pollution Control Board 

 and nine regional water control boards were created, members were 

 appointed by the Governor, their powers and duties defined, and other 

 state agencies concerned with the beneficial uses of water were instructed 

 as to their parts in the over-all program. 



This act provides the means for coordinating the actions of the 

 various state agencies and political subdivisions in the control of water 

 pollution, and for enforcing correction of conditions which are dangerous 

 to iniblic health, recreation and the best interests of the State. 



Another valuable and much needed act was that defining the offshore 

 boundaries of the State. (Government Code, Chap. 65, Stats. 1949.) 



WILDLIFE CONSERVATION BOARD PROJECTS 



By the close of the biennium. tlie Wildlife Conservation Board had 

 allocated over $8,500,000 to 73 projects. The survey of these projects 

 which follows is taken from "California's Fish and Game Program" 

 (1950), a report prepared by Seth Gordon, consultant to the board. 



SUMMARY OF APPROVED PROJECTS 



Fish Hiitchery and Stockins Projects (18) $2,833,900 



Warmwater and Other Fish Projects (6) 164,.500 



Flow Maintenance and Stream Improvement Projects (14) 4.50,000 



Screen and Ladder Projects (14) 352,140 



State Game Farm Projects (4) 106,000 



Other Upland Game Projects (4) 443,150 



Waterfowl Management Projects (9) 1 4,177,376 



General Projects (4) ^ 65,000 



Total (78 projects) $8,592,066 



