The Pensacola journal. (Pensacola, Fla.) 1898-1985, 1915-10-03
vox PopUL1
! : u~~~A~A~~NA~N~ :
WILL OUR SHELL
FISH COMMISSION PAY?

Editor Pensacola Journal.
Now that the oyster season is open |
ing there is much said and to be said
about the Shell Fish Commission. We
are sorry to note that some of our
people through ignorance are fighting
this great enterprise, and are making
a vicious effort to show the present
commissioner up in the wrong light.
We have every reason to believe that
Mr.. Hodges is the best man that could
have been put in this responsible
place. Talk is cheap, but facts cam
not be surrounded. We quote some
extracts from the report of bureau of
shell fisheries, 1914, for New Jersey.
ct is generally conceded that #
the state had taken no steps for the
conservation of this great industry
there would be at this time nothing
left to show all the large sums ex-
pended by the state and individuals
to preserve it. AS has been here
stated, and annually brought to the
attention of the legislature especial,
ly, and the people generally, it has
been difficult to efface from the minds
of the average citizen living within
reach of the oyster and clam bearing
areas the idea that these products
are their inherent rights, to take as
the notion seizes them without any
legal restriction whatever. The effort
to eradicate the idea has been going
on for about fifteen years and we are
pleased to note that slowly, but sure
ly, those people have realized that
their conception of the situation was
| incorrect. We are gratifed to note
that we have at last reached the point
where the citizens thoroughly under
stand that this industry is the prop
erty of the state, which means all the
| people, and that it is incumbent upon
the state, through it's representatives
in the legislature, to pass adequate
laws for its conservation and extern
sion. 1t is recalled that the first at
tempts to legislate for the conserva-
ton of this industry were met with
the most violent opposition. For years
! there had been, as has been stated,
! the feeling that every oyster that
grew was common property Of the
man who could first grab it out Of
the water"
/ We will begin to see that we ara
up against the things that have beer
common in all the other states thai
have this law We have much sails
about the natural bars being leased
and when we look into the matter VIC
find that few people know what the
j law terms a natural bar. Because
bottoms in the state have been Lei
where oysters once grew is no reason
that this bottom should lay vacant
because a few hot-hcads contend tha-
, it is natural bars. Mr.. Hodges went
. over all the ground in our section be
fore any was let and declared sucl
bottoms were open for lease. TIL
state provided a way Ct contest an,
if any bottoms have been taken Al
j illegally the law is open to ali men
But these parties who want to maxi
trouble know there is no chance =
overcome this decision according t
the law so they prefer to stir up tn
: ignorant class to commit crimes. O
!. all crimes it seems to me that thi
is the worst to create sentiment j.
the ignorant class to get them to in
criminate themselves.
The contention that is raised wit
US is met with this quotation from
the sixth report of the Shell Fis
) Commission of Maryland for 1915
page 8: "Many oystermen on tn
other hand are disposed to insist tha
all ground on which oysters have eve
grown is to be regarded as naturs
S bottom, and many Of the protests pre-
scented to the board are based upo
the fact that the ground. in questio
is scattered with shells, and is az
eordingly, according to the defnitio
of the protestants, natural oyster ba
S without regard to the question as t
e whether there are or are not an
livi.,~ oysters thereon"
The report from Rhode Island n
pol1s one individual as paying SCI
: $4,000 as rentals on leased bottom
o Their rent is SIS to SO per acre. v
it have compiled some of the reports I
the states having oyster laws ar
y will give some of the gross incomes.