missioners since the adoption of this form of voluntary 

 service have been composed of men of the highest char- 

 acter, many of them well known through the State as pub- 

 lic spirited men of large affairs. Many of these Commis- 

 sioners have been willing and eager to give much of their 

 time and thought to the fascinating subject with which 

 they were entrusted, making it a kind of fad. But the 

 prevailing opinion among the sportsmen of the State is 

 that the fish and game are disappearing. A comparison 

 between Connecticut and her neighboring States in the 

 activities of their respective Fish and Game Commissions, 

 in so far as it can be made, shows Connecticut at the bot- 

 tom of the list and ones first impulse is to direct ones fire 

 at the Commission which produced such negative results 

 but a close study of the facts discloses weakness which 

 no Commission organized as this Commission has been by 

 counties could overcome. 



The propagation and protection of non-migratory fish 

 and game and the regulation of the killing of such fish and 

 game are not county functions. They are State functions 

 just as the regulations governing ihigrating fish and game 

 are Federal functions. To decentralize a State's duties 

 into Counties is fatal to good results. In the first place 

 a large unwieldly commission, no matter how high grade 

 its personnel, soon loses interest and ceases to function as 

 a commission. It is fortunate if a president or chairman 

 can be found who will bear the bulk of the work uncom- 

 plainingly with little but complaints for compensation. 

 The President of the former Commission has served the 

 State with a devotion most unusual. Divided responsibili- 

 ty begets inefficiency and the county system divides the 

 responsibility for results among eight counties in the case 

 of Connecticut. 



The natural outlet for the activities of a Fish and Game 

 Commission is with and in State reserves known as game 

 sanctuaries but in Connecticut these are under the control 

 of a Park Commissioner, an effective one apparently and 

 well administered but not closely cooperating with the 

 Fish and Game Commission. 



Furthermore a Park Commissioner's duty is to make its 

 first selections of land contiguous to large centers of popu- 

 lation directly opposed to the first choice of a Fish and 

 Game Commission who require low lying isolated tracts 

 supplying natural food for birds and mammals and sur- 

 rounded by semi-wild land for the game overflow. 



The State B'orestry Department upon which the Fish 

 and Game Commission must depend for the treatment of 



