TWENTY-NINTH BIENNIAL REPORT. 63 



was 327,645,017 p.ounds and in 1925 it was 414,753,312 pounds. The 

 fluf'tiiatioii in total catch for tlie past several years has been caused by 

 the fluctuation in the sardine catch. The total catch of fish, other 

 than sardines, remains fairly constant. This is well illustrated in figure 

 No. 11. The total catch of all species of fish together with the amount 

 of the fish pack and of all fishery products is given in the appendix to 

 this report. We are quite sure that California's fisheries for both vol- 

 ume and value of the products exceed that of any state b}^ a good 



margin. 



SARDINES. 



The sardine fishery is now the most important of our fisheries indus- 

 ti'ies. It is the most varial)]e in ([uantity of fisli eauuht and it presents 

 more complicated problems to the state's administration than any other. 

 The large profits to be made on fish meal and oil from sardijies, together 

 with the state's policy of confining the use of sardines to the production 

 of human food, has caused most of the trouble. Each cannery had its 

 own by-products plant and the more sardines they turned into fertilizer 

 and oil the greater their profits. The law prohibited the use of food 

 fish for reduction purposes, but provided that sardine canners could use 

 up to 25 per cent of the catch in their by-products plants, the ])ercentage 

 to be allowed each season to be determined at hearings lield before the 

 Fish and Game Commission. It was found that this law was very 

 difficult to enforce, for there were too many ways in which its pro- 

 visions could be avoided. We therefore recommended in our last report 

 that this law be redrawn and that the hearings before the Fish and 

 Game Commission be eliminiatecl and the amount of sardines which it 

 is legitimate to use in the by-products plant be definitely fixed in the 

 law. It was also recommended that the penalty for violation be quick 

 find severe. 



In the fall of 1924, before this law could be amended by the legis- 

 lature, the Monterey Fish Products Company, an independent reduction 

 plant, attacked its constitutionality on the ground that it permitted a 

 canner to use sardines in a reduction plant but did not permit a reduc- 

 tion plant not operated by a canner to receive sardines direct from 

 fishermen, and was therefore discriminatory. This case went to the 

 State Supreme Court where it was decided that the law was constitu- 

 tional. This decision was not rendered until March, 1925. In the mean- 

 time the canners and the Fish and Game Commission had agreed that 

 the law should be amended and with that object in view one or two 

 conferences were held and it was agreed with the canners that the law 

 should he amended so as to do away with the hearings before the Com- 

 mission and to put teeth in the law so that a violator could be stopped 

 at once. The amount of overage was to be 25 per cent based in some 

 way on the capacity of the cannery. The Commission's attorney was 

 to draw up the bill and submit it to a future conference or to repre- 

 sentatives of the canners and the canners were to stand with tlie Com- 

 mission against those who would exploit the state's supply of sardines 

 for the making of fertilizer and oil. Two other factions were asking 

 that the law provide for them. One was a company which wished to 

 use a reduction process to produce fish flour for human consumption. 



