11-4 REPORT OF THE FISH AND GAME COMMISSION. 



REPORT OF THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT. 

 To the Honorable Board of Fish and Game Commissioners 



Gentlemen: I herewith submit to you a report of the work of the 

 legal department of the commission for two years, ending June 30, 1916. 



During this biennial period there have been many interesting legal 

 matters which have come up in the work of the Fish and Game Com- 

 mission. The period has been marked by the greatest number of cases 

 ever made by the deputies of the Fish and Game Commission in any 

 similar period of time. There has been more active help and coopera- 

 tion from citizens than at any time in the past. In former years, it 

 was practically certain that when a violator demanded a jury trial he 

 would be acquitted, but at present in most parts of the state the 

 chances are not greatly in his favor. In many instances jury trials 

 have been won where the evidence was far from conclusive. 



In July, 1914, in the District Court of Appeals in Los Angeles 

 County, the case of People vs. Mascola came up on appeal. The 

 attorney for ]\Iascola contended that the Districting Act, w'hich had been 

 passed by the legislature in conformity with the constitutional amend- 

 ment of 1902, was unconstitutional in that it prohibited the people of 

 certain sections from doing that which was allowed in other sections. 

 In the decisions handed down by the court the contention of the appel- 

 lant was overruled but the title of the Districting Act of 1913 was 

 declared faulty, and the act was set aside. In tlie decision it was 

 also noted that laws must applj* uniformly over each district and that 

 it was not constitutional to except certain sections within the district. 

 On account of this decision it was necessary to revise the Districting 

 Act and to change many of the laws on the statutes. This was done 

 at the 1915 session of the legislature. 



One of the most difficult problems, and also one of the most impor- 

 tant, that comes before the Fish and Game Commission is compelling 

 canal owners to maintain fish screens in irrigating ditches and to 

 construct and maintain fish ladders over dams. In many instances 

 long and bitter litigation has been carried out. 



Before fish screens that would operate under all conditions had 

 been perfected, it was practically impo.ssible to compel the installa- 

 tion and maintenance of screens. At the present time, however, 

 screens have been developed that will operate under any and all 

 conditions and there is not a canal in the state in wliieh it would 

 be impossible to maintain a proper screen. 



During November, 1915, the canal companies owned or controlled 

 by the Fresno Canal and Irrigation Company were notified that they 

 would be required to screen their ditches in such a way that all fish 

 life would be prevented from passing into the canals. After notice 



