8 



destroy all gars taken in nets, a proposition which means much in the 

 protection of the fish, as gars are particularly destructive to spawn and 

 fry of all varieties. The close season during which it is unlawful to 

 ship fish caught in Illinois waters, has proven one of the most practi- 

 cal provisions yet given us. It covers a period in which most of the 

 fish are spawning and when the law is properly enforced fish are not 

 accepted by the transportation companies, hence there is no incentive 

 to catch them for market and they Ireceive the best of protection for 

 forty-five days. 



The patrol of the rivers, and taking of nets and seines used unlaw- 

 fully, is also quite effective. While a number of nets have been taken 

 and by due process of law destroyed, yet the number as compared with 

 former seasons was not large when the great extent of the State is 

 considered. 



In justice to the responsible members of the fishing industry, it 

 should be said that a better feeling exists than formerly, as the com- 

 mission has endeavored to demonstrate that the laws, as made, must 

 be enforced for the protection equally of the commercial fishermen and 

 the anglers. 



That Illinois is not alone in its efforts to solve this problem we take 

 the liberty of adding herewith an extract from a paper read before the 

 American Fisheries Society, by Oregon Milton Dennis, secretary and 

 counsel Maryland State Game and Fish Protective Association, assis- 

 tant State Game Warden : 



Great difficulty is at once apparent, especially to you, gentlemen, of pre- 

 suming to suggest a solution of this great question of fish protection. This 

 condition is brought about, first, by the belief that he the fisherman, has an 

 inherent and inalienable right of fishery, which has come to him through a 

 long line of ancestry in the same way in which an estate entail operated at 

 common law, and a right which neither his fellow citizens, land owners or 

 the State can take from him, or in any sense abrogate. That the right of 

 the state to legislate for the protection of fish was settled as far back as 

 the Magna Charta is of small concern to him. 



The first problem then is the education of the takers of fish as to the right 

 of the State to legislate for their protection and to make him understand 

 and believe that the only interest that the state has in passing legislation 

 for their protection is for increase of fish in the waters within its boundaries, 

 but the proceeds thereof go directly to the fishermen. 



Then again fish protection does not appeal to the fisherman as does game 

 and bird protection to the hunter and sportsman. The absence of sentiment 

 and the aplication of the senses of sight and sound which appeal to the 

 aesthetic nature of men as well as of women whose early morning slumbers 

 are brought to an end by the beautiful songs and warblings of the song 

 birds, the beauty of their plumage to the sight, the steady arm and true aim 

 of the sportsman who kills his pheasant or his quail or his deer or his rabbit — 

 none of these things appeal to the fisherman, who throws his net trusting 

 to Providence or good luck to fill it with the finny tribe — not that any of his 

 senses shall be gratified or his troubled brain soothed by the song, but how 

 much will the catch be worth. This is the only sentiment that controls the 

 market, fisherman. He cares not for his fellowmen nor his state, but how 

 much is there in it for him, that is all. Hence the difficulty in enforcing 

 laws, even after proper ones are passed by the state for fish protection. 



