Vilas County news. [volume] (Eagle River, Vilas County, Wis.) 1896-1927, 1922-09-13
FAVOR FISH LICENSE
Both State Game Association
and Conservation Sports
men See ACCESSIBILITY of a
Nominal Fee for Fisher
men.
men

men.
Since the meeting of the state
Fish and Game Association meet
ing at Madison in July, there has
been much pro and con" over the
matter of both conservative
and wildcat sportsmen. Just how
this matter may be worked out
20 the benefit OF the farmer, is
shown IN the appended article
taken from the Milwaukee Journ-
al.
AT the meeting of the associa-
ton for the protection OF game
and fish last July, the following
paragraph is taken from the min
.utes of the meetinga Motion
made and seconded that a license
fee OF Sl.OO be placed upon each
adult male fisherman eighteen
years or overJ Motion carried"
The article from the Journal
reads as follows:
Our Game Fish-a Problem
The conservation of our game
ish, the interests of all anglers,
Justice to hunters and the future
of Wisconsin's tourist trade are
among the important things in
VOWED in the movement TO pro-
vide resident fishing licenses.
Discussion OF the plan on its mer-
ITS will lead TO support of it up
on its merits. Any misunder-
standing Of it is impossible once
anybody grasps its purposes and
scope, which are very clear. and
simple. Yet, two OF three state
have critized it, not
for anything it proposes, but for
Ia thing that it specifically guards
against. A Sawyer county paper,
for example, asserts that the pur-
pose is that everyone who uses
even a thread and a bent pin TO
fish Tor clubs in the brook is re-
quired to pay a license fee of 81.
no. decidedly no. Under the plan
every woman and every child
would be as free to fish without
charge as they have ever been.
AN that the bill requires is that
adult male residents pay license
fees. and that they pay for game
fishing only muskellunge, bass,
pike and trout-the supply of
which depends upon artificial aid
to propagation, together with
careful distribution, planting and
protection. Restocking and pro-
tecting our waters cost large
sum of money yearly approx
mately $4,000, and will cost more
with each passing year unless
virtual depletion of most of our
waters is TO be permitted.
Radical changes in conditions
must be understood. Years ago
the natural reproduction of fish
began to fall behind the demands
of the growing number of ang-
Icrs. Since that time many hun
Ircds of thousands of dollars,
perhaps. S2.OO0.OO0 or more, has
been spent in propagating, trans
porting and protecting game fish.
Of this cost resident anglers as
class have contributed nothing.
The bulk of the expense, in fact
much more than the tota' cost
II u-onaaation taken by itself,
has been met with funds derived
from hunting licenses. Thus there
has been artificial propagation OF
'sh without expense to anglers.
lat there has been no artificial
roraration of game, and yet
hunters have been charged for
hunting and most of the money
they have paid In has been spent
TO maintain fishing.
Inasmuch rs a license is re-
uired for hunting, although
anne IS not being propagatcd, IS
here not much more reason Tor
rcauirinr a resident license fee
for fshin.. inasmuch as the prop
: alton of fish is necessary and
costly? Moreover, there must be
much more intensive propaga-
ion. at still ereater cost, if fish
mo Is 20 be maintained. Where
is the money to come from ifnot
from fishing licenses?
To continue 10 use hunting IN
cense revenues TO maintain fish
inc is probably unjust to the hun
tiers. Hunting fees should be de
voted 10 conserving and propaga-
ting game. but even if the hunt
ers were TO waive their interests