36 REPORT OF STATE BOARD OF FISH COMMISSIONERS. 



can perhaps be combined with advantage. In both these States the Fish 

 and Game Commissioner is a salaried officer. 



The Fish and Game Commission of Connecticut is allowed $1,500 per 

 year for salaries and expenses. They favor the consolidation of these 

 interests. Their appropriations are all made for the propagation of fish. 

 They say: "This State is doing substantially nothing to preserve game. 

 It is advisable to protect the game of the State, and if not soon done 

 there will be none to protect. This State should pay its Commissioners 

 far better, and should make larger appropriations for the use of the 

 Commission. * * * We hope for better things at the next session." 



The Vermont Fish and Game Commission, while favoring a consoli- 

 dation for their State, say: "We think it depends much upon the size 

 of the State, the amount of work expected to be done," etc. This com- 

 mission has been greatly aided by the Vermont Fish and Game League, 

 which has paid bills not legally acceptable to the State Auditor. 



The New Hampshire Fish and Game Commission write: "We favor 

 one commission in an inland State and two in a seaboard State." 



Michigan has a Fish Commission and a Game and Fish Warden, and 

 while the Fish Commission favors the placing of the administration of 

 the fishery laws in its hands, it deems it wiser to keep the game and 

 fish interests separated. The Commissioners say: "The propagation, 

 distribution, and protection of game and game-fish is well enough, and 

 is a matter to which the State may well give attention; but, in our 

 opinion, the State is more deeply interested in the propagation, distri- 

 bution, and protection of commercial fish than in anything else. Any 

 Fish Commission which gives up its time to propagation, distribution, 

 and protection of game and game-fish alone, is not living up to its pos- 

 sibilities." Michigan is fully alive to the value of this work, and shows 

 it by appropriating $33,200 annually for its maintenance. 



Pennsylvania has a Fisheries Commission and a Game Commission, 

 each composed of six members. The annual appropriation for the use 

 of the Fisheries Commission is $22,500. The Game Commission is 

 given no appropriation. The Fish Commissioners favor the continua- 

 tion of the existing conditions, and say: " In our State the fishing 

 interests are many times more valuable than the game interests, so 

 much so that the Fish Commission has always opposed mingling one 

 with the other." 



Maryland has maintained a Fish Commission for many years, and at 

 the last session of the Legislature passed an Act authorizing the appoint- 

 ment of a game warden. He, as well as the two Fish Commissioners, 

 are salaried officers. 



In 1893 the State of Oregon appointed a fish and game protector under 

 salary, who succeeded the Fish Commission, composed of three members. 

 He writes: " From nearly four years' experience I have become convinced 



