10 FISH AND GAME COMMISSION. 



State Controller, ju order that he might be perfectly protected in his 

 allowance of the claim thereupon presented by the Fish and Game 

 Commission in accordance with said order, insisted upon a decision 

 of the Supreme Court justifying and commanding such allowance. The 

 Fish and Game Commission thereupon brought this proceeding before 

 the Supreme Court seeking a writ of mandate to compel the State 

 Controller to approve and allow its claim. The matter was presented 

 to the Supreme Court en banc and the court handed down its decision 

 thereon upon June 12, 1924. 



The opinion which was written by Mr. Justice Richards and con- 

 curred in by all the members of the court reviews exhaustively the 

 history of the creation of the special fund of the Fish and Game Com- 

 mission and of the legislation relating to the use of said fund. It also 

 reviews the several recent decisions of the Supreme Court interpreting 

 and applying the provisions of the budget amendment and of the 

 budget bill. It holds that section 680 of the Political Code has applica- 

 tion to such cases of urgency as this and to the relief of self-supporting 

 boards and commissions having special funds derived from fees, fines 

 and collections and devoted to the particular activities of such boards 

 and commissions. It is needless to say that the decision of the Supreme 

 Court in this important case ha.s given widespread satisfaction. 



The sole support of the Fish and Game Commission's work is 

 dependent upon licenses paid by hunters and anglers and by the fines 

 imposed on violators. Although there has been some increase in the 

 number of licenses sold in the past two years, yet funds are not 

 adequate for necessary conservation work. A deficiency appropriation 

 allowed by the Governor and State Board of Control prevented a 

 serious handicap to the work pending a court decision Avhich released 

 the "frozen funds" of the Commission. A complete itemization of the 

 income and expenditures will be found in the appendix. 



Most states have found* it necessary to increase the license fees to 

 properly administer natural resources. California, even against 

 pressure by the anglers of the state, has maintained its nominal license 

 fee. However, the increasing demand for a greater output from the 

 hatcheries and for better patrol makes it advisable to recommend a 

 spcciftl license for deer and an increased angling license fee. 



VALUE OF FISH AND GAME RESOURCES. 



Following the present tendency to try and estimate the actual value 

 of fish and game resources the following is offered. Nearly a half 

 million hunting and angling licenses are issued annually. If each 

 licensee spent an average of .$100 somewhere near $50,000,000 is 

 expended in the pursuit of fish and game. Add to this sum the 

 $25,000,000 valuation of the output of the commercial fisheries and 

 we have a total of $75,000,000. Cut this for safety to $60,000,000 and 

 we have a conservative estimate of the husiuess created yearly because 

 there is game and fish available to the sportsnum, and fish resources in 

 the sea. This business is well distributed throughout the state and 

 there are few l)usiness men who do not profit tlierefrom. And this 

 business has been built up on a "taxation ])y participation" license 

 plan and is not supported by general taxation. 



