FEDERAL AID IN FISH RESTORATION 



(DINGELL-JOHNSON) 



In telling you the story of our Dingell- Johnson program we are going 

 to describe a group of seemingly unrelated and diverse fisheries. How- 

 ever, in California fishing is diversified. One can fish for golden trout 

 in lakes 12,000 feet high ; or for channel catfish in the Imperial Valley 

 at 200 feet below sea level. On our northern streams the steelhead angler 

 wades the broad riffles or dunks his bait in a likely hole. In Southern 

 California, yellowtail fishermen jostle for space at the rails of the ocean 

 party boats, while the solitary surf fisherman may cast his line almost 

 anywhere along a thousand miles of coast. 



Here is a state famed for its recreational resources, and still regarded 

 —even by most of its native sons — as a bountiful land where every 

 fisherman should be able to tap this resource and get his limit. Actually, 

 we are a state where the population has doubled in two decades, where 

 the angling pressure has skyrocketed, and where our fishing waters are 

 fast being decreased through the economic encroachment of industry, 

 pollution, hydroelectric plants, and irrigation diversions. What, then, 

 should such a state do when new federal aid funds suddenly become 

 available ? 



Such funds did become available to us in 1951 as a result of the Fed- 

 eral Aid in Fish Restoration Act which had been passed by Congress in 

 August, 1950. Better known as ' ' Dingell- Johnson, ' ' this act was designed 

 to finance cooperative programs with the states to investigate and man- 

 age their sport fisheries. The funds are derived from a 10 percent excise 

 tax on fishing tackle : rods, reels, flies, lures, baits and creels. The moneys 

 are then allotted to the states in direct proportion to their size and the 

 number of fishing licenses they sell. 



By a state enabling act (Ch. 1173, Stats. 1951) the State of Cali- 

 fornia assented to the provisions of the federal act, and the Fish and 

 Game Commission was authorized to conduct cooperative fish restoration 

 projects. The Federal Government pays 75 percent of the project costs ; 

 the State 25 percent. 



Our actual apportionment for the first fiscal year (1951-52) was not 

 known until October 9, 1951. We then received $128,745.53 to which the 

 State added $42,915.17, giving us a total of $171,660.70 for the first year 

 of operations. The funds were allocated to our two fisheries bureaus : 

 Fish Conservation and Marine Fisheries. An over-all coordination was 

 established. The Department of Fish and Game had started its D-J 

 program. 



Our first question was, ' ' How can we best use these funds ? ' ' Should 

 we utilize the moneys for routine surveys or for over-all evaluations of 

 fisheries problems — as some states have done? We thought not. Most 

 aspects of such work had been well under way for some years. While 

 valuable, this would merely be more of the same. Should we quickly 

 dissipate our funds by the construction of a few artificial lakes or some 



( 91 ) 



