April 2, 1910.] 
FOREST AND STREAM. 
541 
time, as the river is very crooked and in times 
past has no doubt been all over the intervale. 
Most of these ponds are permanent, having 
water in them the year round. 
But it is peculiar that the snub-noses are caught 
in the river and never, so far as I know, in the 
ponds. We associate the deformity with the 
steep banks, and it is a common thing for a 
fisherman to say when landing one: “Here is 
another one that lias butted his nose against the 
bank.” The banks are steep and are constantly 
being eaten away by the water, and the river 
is as constantly changing its course. 
There must be some reason for this strange 
appearance. Perhaps it is conformity to environ¬ 
ment. The surrounding conditions may be such 
as to develop this flattened head and protruding 
jaws. 
The cut accompanying Mr. Schneider’s article 
is a good one and very accurately resembles the 
perch I refer to. With the exceptions above 
noted, the fish seem to be normal, unless it be 
that they are heavy. I think that inch for inch 
they are the heaviest perch I ever saw. 
G. A. Brown. 
Fish Protective Legislation 1 ". 
The political division of Maryland through 
the representation of county members in the 
Legislature places the control of legislation with¬ 
in the power of the counties, notwithstanding 
the fact that while about one-half of the popu¬ 
lation is centered in Baltimore city the latter 
has only about one-four/h of the delegates. I 
mention this because protective influences origi¬ 
nate very largely in the city, and the State’s 
chief protective association is there composed of 
men who, whether intelligently or not, frame 
the bills that are prgsented to the Legislature 
for action. I say intelligently, because while this 
association includes some of the wealthiest and 
best of our citizens, its enthusiasm for protec¬ 
tion of both game and fish and the bills framed 
by it are largely based on the selfish reasons of 
sportsmen, and largely without regard to intelli¬ 
gent conclusions with reference to the rights of 
the commercial fishermen whose vote is suffi¬ 
ciently large in tide-water sections of our State 
to control the electorate. This being true, the 
county members of the .Legislature, as well as 
the fishermen themselves, look with suspicion 
tipon any measure presented to the Legislature 
w hich has for its purpose the protection of fish 
and game when such measure is presented by 
city men. 
Growing out of this condition (about two 
years ago) a fishermen’s protective association 
was formed in Maryland for the distinct pur¬ 
pose of fighting the city association on the 
ground that the latter was unfair, and that its 
only interest in protection, it was believed, was 
to secure to the angler a good day’s fishing 
without regard to the commercial fisherman’s 
interest. 4 his condition grew out of a policy 
of the game protective association of introduc¬ 
ing measures abolishing the use of all sorts of 
nets, or so restricting their use that the com¬ 
mercial fisherman would be put out of business. 
I am happy to say, however, that during the past 
year, I believe largely through my own efforts 
*Read by Oregon Milton Dennis, former State Game 
Warden of Maryland, before the American Fishery 
Congress. 
as State game warden, the two associations have 
united on a number of measures for fish pro¬ 
tection, though without specific results. 
Unfortunately, the selfish interest of one c'ass 
and the suspicions of .another are largely the 
reason for the failure of proper fish protective 
legislation. The angler goes to the Legislature 
with a bill based on his idea of what the law 
should be, and that idea is usually the prohibi¬ 
tion of the use of all sorts of nets which will 
interfere with his sport; another class, the com¬ 
mercial fishermen, prepare a bill to protect them 
in the use of the sort of nets with which they fish, 
and still another set of fishermen have a bill to 
protect them in their method. The result is 
that the legislative committee before whom these 
bills go is pulled and hauled and besieged and 
worked upon by the various interests to such 
an extent that it becomes disgusted and pigeon¬ 
holes all the bills, so that none is passed. 
Another reason is that while the State of 
Maryland spends thousands of dollars for fish 
culture, it persistently refuses to make any ap¬ 
propriation for, or to give the State warden de¬ 
partment any material assistance in. the enforc- 
ment of such laws as we now have, and while 
the State Navy is charged by law to enforce 
the laws for fish protection, the character of its 
boats prevents them from going into shallow 
waters to do any work, even if time permitted 
to divert the boats from oyster protection to do 
this. 
What I have said above is but the foundation 
for specific reasons which I shall give for fail¬ 
ure of protective legislation, and which in my 
opinion can be reduced to the following, to wit: 
1. Up to this time it has been absolutely im¬ 
possible to get the tide-water fishermen to agree 
on any bills, and in my judgment, even if proper 
laws were enacted under the system in our State, 
they would absolutely fail of enforcement. 
2. I declare, next to the above reason, that 
the greatest reason for non-passage, of fish pro¬ 
tective bills is the action and influence of the 
duck gunners of Mary’and, who, either by pur¬ 
chase or by lease, secure absolute control of 
water fronts in the tide-water counties for their 
ducking clubs and shooting grounds. These 
gentlemen, among the foremost citizens of our 
State, and largely residents of the city, are 
jealous of the rights that they claim they have 
paid for, and in order that they may preserve 
them, are in constant conflict with the resident 
fishermen who ply their industry in the waters 
fronting or adjacent to these shores. Against 
these men of wealth and influence there is small 
opportunity to prevail with the legislators when 
there is a conflict between the rights of the 
duckers and the fishermen. 
1 here are a number of other reasons which, 
in my opinion, prevent the passage of proper 
fish protective laws, but these are sufficient for 
my purpose. 
Now as to the remedy. I shall offer but one, 
but I think it will be sufficiently radical to bring 
down on my head all the knocks that I can 
stand up under. You will remember that I 
made this suggestion at the last annual meeting 
of the American Fisheries Society. 
Admitting the necessity for protection of 
young fish after they have been placed in the 
waters by the States and the United States, the 
question that confronts us is, how? I believe 
that, if it comes within the constitutional powers 
of the Government, Congress should pass proper 
interstate laws for the protection of fish. 
Thousands of dollars are being spent, practi¬ 
cally wasted, for fish propagation in Maryland. 
4 he State has persistently neglected to provide 
for protection. Not until after fifty years of 
constant agitation and the practical extermina¬ 
tion commercially of the oyster has Maryland 
been awakened (and that but two years ago) to 
the fact that the oyster in Maryland must be 
protected or exterminated. If it has taken this 
long to awaken to the serious condition of the 
oyster, how long will it take to recognize the 
necessity for the protection of the fish, and thus 
save to the people of our own State and other 
communities and from extermination one of the 
greatest natural food products of the world? 
Mr. Bryan, at the conference of the governors 
of the States, held in May last, in Washington, 
had this to say with reference to the protection 
of the great natural .resources of the country— 
that he regarded “the development of water 
transportation as essentially a national project, 
because the water courses run by and through 
many States.” In my judgment it is just as im¬ 
portant for the National Government to protect 
the natural industry which has its life and being 
as a food product in and under the waters of 
this country, as it is to enlarge and protect the 
waterways for the carrying away from and bring¬ 
ing to 11s the great commerce of the world. I be¬ 
lieve it more important, because the products of 
the water provided food to man long before he 
thought of the creation of great fortunes by the 
use of water courses for commercial purposes. 
I am a State s rights man and am jealous of 
an}' action of the National Government which 
would deprive the State of a single right. But 
when I consider that the great bodies of water 
which produce natural food run through and by 
different States; when I consider that petty 
political influences, jealousies and other equally 
silly reasons prevent a State from protecting 
from extermination a natural food product, I am 
convinced that the only solution of this question 
is in rational control of the fish by the Federal 
Government. I hope this Congress will put it¬ 
self on record to that end, for I believe that 
not until this is done and the Federal Govern¬ 
ment legislates for fish protection and supplies 
its powerful backing to the enforcement of such 
laws, will the question of fish protection be 
solved. 
Recent Publications. 
Mighty FTunters, by Ashmore Russan. Cloth, 
286 pages, illustrated, $1.35 net. New York 
and London, Longmans, Green & Co. 
Opening with a foreword as to the prowess 
of Richard Carson and his wife in the hunting 
field, the author details their many adventures 
in Chiapas, Mexico. It is a pleasing narrative, 
in which, however, the author’s imagination 
bridges over gaps that might otherwise have 
been dull. 
David Bran, by Morley Roberts. Cloth, 420 
pages, $1.50. Boston, L. C. Page & Co. 
I he fisher folk of a British village are the 
characters in this novel, and a pleasing tale it is, 
though, strangely enough, every fisherman ashore 
is a Solomon for worldly wisdom, and their 
every word ix spoken in the purest English. 
