REPORT OF STATE BOARD OF FISH COMMISSIONERS. 37 



that it would be better to separate the authority and responsibility for 

 the enforcement of the laws for the protection of food fish from that of 

 the protection of game." 



The Fish Commissioner of Washington writes: ''I do not think that 

 the protection of fish and game should be under one Commission, for 

 the reason that, in our State, the commercial importance of the fisheries 

 is so great that it demands the entire attention of one Commissioner and 

 his deputies. I think the interests of the State would be best served by 

 keeping the commissions for the protection and fostering of fish and 

 game entirely separate. This State makes no appropriation for the pro- 

 tection of its game. I am of the opinion that a sufl&cient amount should 

 be appropriated to allow the game warden a fair salary for himself and 

 deputies, and also a reasonable amount for traveling and incidental 

 expenses." 



The Iowa and Nevada Fish Commissioners both favor consolidation, 

 and believe in the protection of game, although this subject is receiving 

 .no attention in either State. Good work, however, is being done in fish 

 culture. 



There is a division of the work in Rhode Island, and the Commissioners 

 of Inland Fisheries advocate a continuation of this policy, believing 

 that it " requires men of especial fitness " for each department. 



Colorado has four game wardens, who receive a salary of $1,200 per 

 year. The Fish Commissioner also receives a salary of $1,200 as game 

 warden. An ex-Commissioner writes: " I think that the two branches 

 of work should be separate. The union of the two branches interferes 

 with each other in various ways in our State." 



The Secretary of the Illinois Fish Commission writes: "Personally, I 

 am of the opinion that the supervision of the fisheries is a work by 

 itself, and that the enforcement of the game laws should be in the hands 

 of an entirely different set of men. I think the best interests of the 

 State demand that the work should be divided." Illinois has three 

 salaried game wardens, who are charged with the enforcement of the 

 game laws. 



In reply to our question as to whether or not one Commission could 

 supervise both interests with saving to the State, the Commissioner of 

 Fisheries of Indiana replied: "It may be a direct saving to the State in 

 money, but not in game and fish." 



The President of the Game and Fish Commission of Montana says: 

 " Under the present circumstances, with no appropriation, one commis- 

 sion is sufficient, but if we had an appropriation I think the interests 

 demand separate game and fish commissions." 



The Fish Commissioner and State Game and Fish Warden of Wyom- 

 ing writes: "I think that the supervision of the fisheries and the 

 enforcement of the game laws are not closely connected in this State, 



