• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

<3 Public Document No. 25 Cbe Commontoealtfj of iWastfatijusettsi ANNUAL REPORT OF THE Division of Fisheries and Game FOR THE Year Ending November 30, 1929 Department of Conservation c^k^ Publication op this Document approved by the Commission on Administration and Finanob 1100. 6-*30. No. 9343. , WHMIAiSE JUL 24 1990 CONTENTS TATE HOUSE, BOSTON General Considerations Personnel Finances Revenue .... Conferences within the State Activities outside the State . Acknowledgments Stockwell Ponds Fund . Amherst Fish Hatchery Fund Montague Fish Hatchery Fund Gifts of Land Other Gifts Enforcement of Law New Legislation Recommendations for Legislation Education and Publicity . Biological Section Field Work Distribution Fish and Bird Diseases Wild Birds and Animals Winter Feeding . Breeding Season Fires Posted Land Migratory Birds Song and Insectivorous Birds Migratory Game Birds . Migratory Non-game Birds—Gulls and Terns Federal Control of Migratory Birds Upland Game .... The Hunting Season Pheasants Ruffed Grouse Qua/l Deer ' Squirrels . , Hares and Rabbits F ur-bea r:r g A n '.mals Enemies to Game Reservations .... Martha's Vineyard Reservation Penikese Island Sanctuary . Other Sanctuaries Reservation under Sections 69-75, Chapter 131, General Laws .... Inland Fisheries .... General Brook Trout Loch Leven, Brown and Rainbow Trout Chinook Salmon 36 White Perch 36 Pike Perch 36 Pickerel 37 Smelt 37 Bass 37 lorned Pout 37 tonds 37 Fishways 40 Pollution 41 Propagation of Fish and Game 41 Game Farms 45 Fish Hatcheries 52 Field Propagation 57 Fish and Game Distribution 61 Marine Fisheries 69 General 69 State Supervisor of Marine Fisher les 70 Inspection of Fish 70 The Deep Sea Fisheries 73 Shore Fisheries . 91 Lobster Fishery 96 Bounties on Seals 97 Mollusk Fisheries 97 Alewife 98 Appendix 99 W$t Commontoealtf) of jWatfgacfjugette The Director of Fisheries and Game herewith presents the sixty-fourth annual report. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS It will be profitable to examine further all the elements which make up the "Relative Values" as applied to the cost of protection and propagation of wild life on the one hand, and the special privilege of the health giving recreation of pursuit and utilization of food on the other. A statement of the case from certain angles brings out some interesting situations. We have a small State of approximately 8,200 square miles of inland waters and land. All of the wild life (excepting the migratory species) that moves over the surface or lives in the waters of this entire area be- longs to all our people. With the formation of our State governments pub- lic ownership in the wild life was asserted. Except to pass scattering laws the State did little more than stake out its claim on the wild life, and rest. For generations it did practically no development work. It is in- teresting to note that Massachusetts did not make a start to provide a State agency to administer its wild life property until 1865. But at that, it has been a pioneer. The entire water and land area (except natural great ponds of ten acres and upwards, our great rivers, and a minor percentage of land owned by the State), is owned by a relatively small group of our people known as the "land owners." They have the fundamental protection of law—that as against the public they may say who shall come on their land (and privately-owned waters) and for what purposes. While the land owners have from the beginning enjoyed this special protection—for many gener- ations it was seldom invoked. It has only been within recent years that the land owners have begun to consider whether they should develop a 4 P.D. 25 source of revenue by requiring the public to pay for the privilege of pur- suing this State-owned property on their lands. Thus we have the anomalous situation of a great mass of State-owned wild life property at large on privately-owned and controlled land and water. While Massachusetts in 1865 took the first steps toward a businesslike administration of its wild life property—it has required the rapid develop- ments of the past few years to bring home to the government the realiza- tion that ownership carries with it responsibilities and obligations as to administrative detail. We have come to understand fully that the protec- tion and propagation of this stock calls for modern business methods. These involve not only protection through warden patrol and the artificial propagation of certain species—but also the preparation of the waters and the grounds to provide the proper biological environment for the stock at large and that which is to be released. Here the State comes up against an insuperable obstacle in carrying out the complete cycle of game admin- istration—the State has no right to go on to private property to do these things without the owners' consent. The State may supply protection in so far as enforcing close season, bag limit and other regulations ; it may artificially propagate fish, game birds and quadrupeds, but here it must stop for there is relatively little State-owned land on which the additional and equally important administrative details of vermin control and pro- viding the proper environment can be carried out. In other words, the State will never be able to apply in their entirety the modern doctrines of game administration except on a relatively small part of the surface of the Commonwealth. The State, through the Legislature, lays down certain rules under which all our people (including the land owners) may exploit this wild life, and defines the property rights which may be exercised in it when reduced to possession. But the State has no power to authorize the public generally in the pursuit of this State-owned property, to go on the lands or privately-owned waters without the land owners' consent. Therefore, it is possible that on an extensive piece of privately-owned land and water may be found a sizeable volume of State-owned wild life property which the land owner, in various ways, may, for all practical purposes, appropriate to his own personal use or advantage. For exam- ple, he has the right to post his land and exclude the public for all pur- poses. He may elect to let the wild life live in peace; or, he may, subject to law, reduce it to possession and enjoy the economic value; or, give the exclusive privilege to his friends to come on to his property and exploit this wild life; or, sell these exclusive privileges to an individual or club, for his personal financial profit. All this in the face of substantial expenditures by the State to protect (through the warden service) this State-owned property, and to increase its volume through propagation and distribution of large numbers of cer- tain species. To put a single concrete case—a man may own a thousand acres of land particularly attractive to pheasants. Within a radius of two miles of this land a number of pheasants produced at the State game farms may be liberated. In time a good percentage of these birds may gravitate to the good pheasant cover on this thousand acres. They are State-owned birds. Nevertheless the owner of this area can appropriate this State-owned property to his own uses as indicated above. The interesting question immediately arises—after all, what rights have the public in this State-owned wild life? The group of our people known as "nature lovers" (as distinguished from those who fish and hunt or trap) may observe it wherever the land owners consent. The group made up of the anglers, hunters and trappers may, subject to law, pursue and reduce to possession this wild life on such State-owned lands as are open for this purpose and on privately-owned waters and land where no objec- tion is raised by the owners. P.D. 25 5 As to this latter group the laws provide that all who wish to hunt, fish or trap (other than certain groups of minors) shall purchase a sporting license from the State in order to exercise the special privilege. The un- derlying theory of the license is that all the people own the wild life, and those who would take some of it for their individual benefit or recreation should pay for the privilege. Land owners may hunt, fish or trap on their own lands without such license if they are domiciled on the land and it is- used exclusively for agricultural purposes. With the foregoing background in mind we are in a position to examine more closely the elements making up the "Relative Values" which our anglers, hunters and trappers receive from the purchase of a sporting or trapping license. While the possession of such license does not give him the right to go on privately-owned waters and lands to exercise the same, nevertheless the tolerant attitude of most of our land owners makes it pos- sible for him to hunt and fish over vast stretches of the State without compensating the land owners for this privilege. The licensee pays no part of the cost of the taxes or up-keep or depreciation on this land—all of this burden falls on the land owners. To it should be added the haz- ards of injury to live stock, of fire, theft of property, and other items re- sulting from the misbehavior of certain of the public on private lands, which ranges from carelessness to downright viciousness. While this opportunity to go on to private land free of charge is not a part of the consideration given him by the State in return for the pur- chase of a license, nevertheless he could not avail himself of this freedom of access to fish and hunt and trap, without having purchased a license.

Load more

  100

Copy Link