The morning call., 1894-07-15

some one is TO blame. This section Of the State
IS well supplied with good-siZed streams that
should furnish the very best Of fishing and
Snould De we'll stocked with trout running from
ten 10 sixteen inches In size. For several years
our legislatures have made large biennial ap-
preparations for the preservation of our hsh
ana game supply. Besides this they have added
10 these appropriations all moneys collected for
HheS ana all licenses PAID for the privileges OF
Hsllng Tor market, which in itself is good
TOund sum. All this money goes into the hands
OF the Board of Fish Commissioners. who are
charged with It's expenditure for the preServa-
ton OF our fish and game; but so tar as The
game is concerned the Commissioners have
almost wholly ignored that, so we only have 10
examine their work In The preservation of fish.
We cannot believe that the Commissioners
are venal and therefore that phase OF the sub
lect Will not be discussed. This eliminates
from the question all causes of their failure ex-
cept two, viz: lack of interest. or a mis-
taken judgment as 10 the proper mode OF pro-
cedure. Mr.. Macneil Of Los Angeles we know
10 be an enthusiastic sportsman and angler.
ana we are cIedltably Informed that he is
doing good work in bis section. OF the TWO
residing in this city, Mr.. Murdoch certainly
loves his rod and reel ana therefore
must have considerable interest IN
hsh preservation. bus this interest
seems 10 b. confined to a few streams
only. The other Commissioner. Mr.. Redding,
seems TO take but little interest in the work of
the board. Therefore, we must charge a con-
siderable amount of the failure 10 a lack OF
proper interest In the work before them. Now
as 10 their judgment In what Is the best man
ner to eXpend this large sum OF money placed
IN their hands. Experience has proven that IL
is the worst possible aud has accomplished no
good. They are laborlng under the mistaken
idea that what is wanted is The Matching
of countless young fish TO be placed In the
streams, ana are. therefore, bending such
energy as they have displayed 10 that end and
spending the money appropriated for that
purpose. AS fish incubatOrs they are undOubt-
edly successes. But what have they accom-
pllshed by 1t? To what extent have they ill.,
creased The fish supply? There can be but
one answer, and that is: None whatever. 1t
should be perfectly clear TO their minds that
the planting Of young fish in our streams, with.
out protecting them afterward. is nothing short
OF waste OF money. Ii should be clear 10 them
as men Of business sagacity that the first ana
most lmpO Iant duty for them to turn their at
tentlon TO is the protection OF our streams
against fishing out of season and against the
dynamite nends who destroy dozens Of all sizes
at one blast. Ii should be clear TO them tuaJ
eXpending money for the Matching OF fish 10 he
Killed by dynamite Is senseless waste and one
That cannot be excused under any pTeteXt
whatever. II should De clear TO them that, the
expenditure of 500 in the protection of
stream would do more 10 increase It's supply of
nsh Ihan would thousand dollars expended In
the planting OF young ones only to be imme-
diately destroyed.
The argument OF the Commissioners that it
is impossible 10 patrol the sixty or seventy
thousand miles OF streams OF The State, is
eYaSiye argument aud shows a lack of good
business judgment. Because hey have not the
means TO s atlOn deputy at every section cor
ner OF this sixty thousand miles of water
course, Is that any reason why they should
make no tempt 10 protect one mile or ten, or
a hundred? They know perfectly well mat
there Is no need of protecting nine-tenths Of the
OF the stare, they now that
Il Is only such portions Of our streams as are
frequented by large numbers OF illegal fisher
men and dynamite users that it Is necessary TO
patrol. The many thousands of miles OF these
streams that are only seldom frequenled and
~here The population Is very sparse patrOlling
IS nncaled for Yet because they cannot pro
-ect all, whether needed or not, thy Will
make no attempt 10 protect any, and have led
themselves into The mistaken notion that they
can hatch sufficient young fry 10 keep up the
supply.
We are surprised that they have nursed this
-atal error so long without having their ewes
opened to the futilty of their plans. We are
willing 10 give them credit for all that they
have done or tried 10 do, but alter three years
OF Wasteful failure they should at least make
some kind of change in their plans ana adopt
some course OF action that promises better re-
turns for the money expended. They should
try AT least the patrOlling of one stream as an
experiment.. l. would be a common sense
change, and would show disposition on their
part 10 at least try TO solve the problem of fish
protection. IL Is time 10 abandon their delu-
slVe hope; 1t Is time 10 make a change and
show The public that their minds are big enough
10 grasp the situation with business sagacity
worthy OF Intelligent men.