REPORT OF THE BUREAU OF LICENSES 



As the work of this bureau consists chiefly of supervising the print- 

 ing of all licenses, their distribution to approximately 8,200 agencies 

 throughout the State, controlling the remittances and closing out the 

 license accounts at the end of each season, and other work in connection 

 with license distribution, there have been very few changes during the 

 past biennium. The work is chiefly of a routine nature. 



There have been a few changes in the law so that we could better 

 control license agents in their handling of license funds, etc., and also 

 a few changes in license fees. The nonresident hunting license fee has 

 been changed from a $10 reciprocal basis to a straight $25 fee. The 

 duplicate license, which previously sold for 50 cents, has been eliminated 

 and the law now provides that all licenses or tags provided by the Fish 

 and Game Code issued as duplicates require the payment of the original 

 fee. The nonresident angling license fee has been changed from a $5 

 reciprocal basis to a $10 fee. A new nonresident angling license has 

 been established which j^ermits the applicant to fish for a period of 10 

 days from the day of issue for a fee of $3. This law has become quite 

 popular with nonresident anglers, although the bulk of our nonresident 

 fishing licenses are sold to the residents of Nevada, our neighboring 

 state, and most of these persons purchase a full season license. A non- 

 resident and alien deer tag was also established by law, the fee for which 

 is $10. The fish packers and shellfish dealers law was amended, and now 

 provides that only persons or firms dealing in fish on a wholesale basis 

 are required to purchase a fishpacker's license. The old law provided that 

 every person or firm who dealt in fresh fish was required to purchase 

 a license. This law created a hardship on many of the fresh fish dealers 

 and butcher shops who handled fresh fish only one or two days a week 

 and they did not sell enough fish to warrant their taking out a license. 



The principal reason for changing the nonresident fishing and hunt- 

 ing licenses from a reciprocal to a flat fee basis was that, although we 

 had properly advised all of the agents as to the correct fee to be collected 

 from applicants from the various states, they inadvertently were neglect- 

 ing to collect these proper fees and invariably would charge the applicant 

 the minimum fee, necessitating that our offices penalize the agents and 

 require them to pay the difference between the amount that was collected 

 and the amount provided by law. This created considerable difficulty 

 on the part of the agent and it became very unpopular ; therefore it was 

 believed that a flat fee would be more satisfactory. The nonresident fee 

 now charged by California for both hunting and fishing licenses is no 

 greater than that charged nonresidents by the states of Oregon, Wash- 

 ington, and Nevada. Ninety-six percent of the nonresident hunting 

 licenses were sold to residents of Nevada and Oregon. Sixty-five percent 

 of the nonresident angling licenses were sold to residents of Nevada 

 alone. The three bordering states — Arizona, Nevada, and Oregon — 

 accounted for approximately 78 percent of all nonresident hunting and 

 angling licenses. 



(67) 



