Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1931-03-03

b~A0AS bAAC 1FAdL AebtAA LcklSldbuEt
for the past 20 years, prohibiting
the use Of purse and buck nets
in the waters of Chesapeake Bay and
its tributaries, after stormy debate,
was favorably reported by the House
Committee on Fisheries last Wednesday
The tidewater counties put up the
same bitter fight against the bill that
they had staged against the measure
every time it has been presented.
Amendments were presented to strike
the provision against buck nets from
the bill, but they were voted down
and the bill, drafted by Delegate Willing
Browne, jr., of Baltimore County, was
adopted and went on the third reading.
Its passage within the next few days
Is regarded as likely. It will then be
sent to the Senate, where the bay
counties will have their Senators take
up the attack where the delegates
left of.
The heated discussion on the bill was
ended when Delegate Lindsay demanded
the question and the roll call ending,
SO to SO, against making the report a
special order was the only close vote
of the several votes which took place
on the measure.
Delegate George L. Edmunds, Demo-
crat, Montgomery County, took the floor
in favor of the bill and declared that
he had received communications from
persons in all parts of the State asking
passage of the measure prohibiting use
of the nets.
THE commercial fishermen of the bay
i petitioned each member Of the
Legislature of Maryland as follows:
I'VE, the commercial fishermen, re-
specially petition your honorable
body to vote against bill No. so, gen
orally known as the purse or buck net
bill, for the reasons herein stated.
81. Its aim Is not for the conserva-
ton of flsh, namely, rock or striped
bass. These fish are caught CONNER
cially in nine different States along this
Atlantic seaboard and migrate pronnis-
cuously in quest Of food from one State
to another. Wherever you find food in
abundance you will see the rock more
plentiful, some years or seasons in diff
ferent parts Of the Chesapeake Bay, at
other times in Long Island Sound, the
Delaware Bay, or it may be the waters
Of the Carolinas; so why deprive our
citizens of commercial fishing the three
months and half while the other eight
States are so privileged?
Statistics compiled by Mr.. George
Quinn of the Bureau of Fisheries show
an increase of rockfish over a period
Of 10 years. In 1920 Maryland waters
produced 522 900 pounds, while in 1880
the production of rockflSh was 1000, 500
pounds.
~. We ask you to vote against this
bill because it is no time for throwing
people out of employment when the
whole world is clamoring for jobs. The
equalization of commercial fishing has
been brought about over a period OF
years and to abolish any one mode OF
fishing would take years of readjust-
ment, causing unwarranted hardships
on those directly affected.
49, The outlay for this mode OF fish,
ing is from $4,000 to $4,000 and, aside
from their homes, 1t means in some
instances their savings of life of hard
work The passage of this bill No. SO
would mean drop in the value OF the
capital invested of from so to 60 per
cent.
a. There never was any objection to
purse net fishing until the advent OF
the Huntington or baitless hook. This
brought new sport to those who were
piscatorially inclined. 1t also brought
them in conflict with the purse meters.
They soon adopted the same methods
used by the purse meters for locating
schools Of Ash by the aid of field glasses,
searching the horizon for gulls that
might be lowering over and dipping
down for floating fragments of fish
caused by the rock feeding upon other
fish. When located a race ensueS. the
fishermen trying to get set before
they disappear and the sports desiring
to get a strike or two before the loca-
ton of the school is lost from view.
This strife, the selfish part of the sport
ing element, is brought to you in the
form Of bill No. so.
IS. There Is room in this large bay
of ours for both the sportsman and the
commercial fisherman, and We also well
come those outside of our State who are
lovers of the piscatory sport, but not to
the extent of legislating against our
commercial enterprises"
a CCORDING to Maryland records
"A there were only IA licensed purse
METERS operating last year. These men
paid a fee of $25 for each net. 1t is re-
ported that only a few purse meters
made any money from their operations
last year, yet they claim in their petition
to the Legislature that the passage of
the bill would throw people out Of en-
ployment when the whole world Is
clamoring for jobs.
They say there never was any objec-
ton to purSe-nef fishing until the adj
vent of the Huntington or baitless hook
Records will show that a purse-net
bill has been before the Maryland Gen
eral Assembly for at least 20 years, long
before the time of the appearance of the
drone bait The sportsmen complained
only when they saw the purSe-netters
getting tons and tons of the game fish
in the Bay, making hauls Of 10 or IL
tons at time; catching more fish than
they were prepared to handle or the ice
houses prepared to pack. Many Of the
fish are known to have been used for
fertilizer. when the sportsmen went
After the fish and did not. in many In.