TWENTY-EIGHTH BIENNIAL REPORT. 49 



The difficulty was in determining: what was unavoidable waste, ^spe- 

 eially in the ease of soft, broken and otf-sized fish discarded by the 

 tish cleaners in selecting the fish for canning. It was a comparatively 

 easy matter for a canner to tliscard half of the catch in this manner 

 to his own great advantage and it was difficult to prove it constituted 

 unnecessary waste. 



If a canner could make a sufficient profit on his reduction or 

 by-products plant, he was able to cut down the price of his canned 

 sardines to a point Avhere they could be sold for export and thus he 

 could find an outlet for the surplus production. The Fish and Game 

 Commission whose duty it was to enforce the Fish Conservation Act 

 had great trouble in doing so for the reason that the law did not 

 adequately cover the emergencies which arose. It seemed desirable that 

 the sardine canners be permitted to use a larger percentage of the 

 catch in their by-product plants where the profit lay, in order that they 

 might be able to dispose of their surplus canned goods at a low price 

 in foreign markets, and thus be able to weather the storm until foreign 

 countries could pay more, or until a better home market could be 

 develoi)ed. 



With this in mind, the canners and the Fish and Game Commission 

 got together and had the act amended in the 1921 legislature. It was 

 then provided in the act that the canners, if they wished to use food 

 fish for reduction purposes, could make application to the Fish and 

 Game Commission whereupon the Commission must hold a hearing 

 for the taking of testimony and if it was shown that there was no 

 other market for the fish and that using them in a reduction plant 

 would not tend to dei)lete the supply, the commission could give 

 permission to use an amount of fish for reduction purposes, of not to 

 exceed 25 per cent of the capacities of the plants making application. 

 Beginning with the fall season of 1921 the Fish and Game Commission 

 has, under the amended act, given the sardine canners a definite 

 percentage of the catch for reduction purposes, the percentage to cover 

 everything not used for canning except the fish offal. Experience has 

 proved that the amended act is no easier of enforcement than the old 

 act. Even with an efficient corps of inspectors to watch the different 

 canning plants it has been impossible to satisfy the law-abiding ones 

 that unscrupulous canners are not getting an advantage over them for 

 the competition is exceedingly keen not only between individual canners 

 but between the different sardine canning districts. If a canner quotes 

 a lower price than the others, it is believed by those who are unable to 

 meet this low price that he could not do it unless he was using more 

 fish in his reduction plant than the rules allowed. 



There are too many ways in which the Commission's order, fixing the 

 percentage which can be used for reduction purposes, can be avoided. 

 In case of a violation of the order of the Commission, it takes too long 

 to stop the offender. 



The Fish Conservation Act should be redrawn and the hearings 

 before the Commission eliminated. The amount of fish which it is 

 legitimate to use for reduction purposes in the process of canning can 

 be definitely fixed in the law. A violation of the law should be a 

 high misdemeanor and the goods manufactured in violation of the law 

 should be subject to seizure by the state. 



4 — 34744 



