HOUSE No. 3550

dje CommontuealtJ) of e^assadjumts

SPECIAL REPORT

OF THE

DIVISION OF FISHERIES AND GAME

RELATIVE TO

TEE ISSUANCE OF SPORTING LICENSES, THE TAKING OF FISH AND THE MOLESTING OF DEER BY DOGS IN CERTAIN COUNTIES

Under Chapter 64 of the Resolves of 1963.

January, 1964

BOSTON WRIGHT & POTTER PRINTING CO., LEGISLATIVE PRINTERS 32 DERNE STREET 1964

Cfte Commontoealti) of e^assadnisetts

Division op Fisheries and Game 3 Tbemont Street, Boston 8, December 18, 1963 To the Honorable House of Representativ In accordance with chapter 64 of the Resolves of 1963 I herewith submit a report of the Division of Fisheries and Game relative to a study of the issuance of sporting licenses and certain related matters, to the taking of fish, and to the molesting of deer by dogs in certain counties. There is incorporated also a report from the Director of Marine Fisheries on commercial fishing, pertaining to House Bill No. 1286, Acts of 1963.

Respectfully submitted )

FRANCIS W. SARGENT Director

y

Cfie CommonUiealtJ) of 00aggad)usetts

REPORT OF THE DIVISION OF FISHERIES AND GAME RELATIVE TO A STUDY OF THE ISSUANCE OF SPORT- ING LICENSES AND CERTAIN RELATED MATTERS, } TO THE TAKING OF FISH, AND TO THE MOLESTING OF DEER BY DOGS IN CERTAIN COUNTIES.

To the Honorable Senate and House of Representatives of Massachusetts in General Court assembled: In accordance with the provisions of chapter 64 of the Resolves of 1958, the Division of Fisheries and Game submits herewith a report on the Resolve providing for an investigation and study on certain matters related to fish and game. Chapter 64 of the Resolves of 1963 is as follows:

Resolved, That the division of fisheries and game, in the department of natural resources, is hereby authorized and directed to make an investigation and study of the subject matter of current senate document numbered 447, relative to lowering the age at which a sporting, hunting, fishing or trapping license shall be issued without a fee, and of current house documents numbered 297, relative to pro viding for the issuance of certain sporting lie enses to persons over the age of sixty-five years without the payment of a fee; 749, relative to making persons on social security eligible for free fishing licens is; 753, relative to establishing an open season on trout fishing; 1286, relative to prohibiting the taking of fish for com- mercial use in Quincy Bay, Hingham Bay, Weymouth Fore River and Weymouth Back River; 1518, relative to the molesting, attacking or killing of deer by dogs in Worcester county; 2310, relative to requiring that hunting licenses bear upon their face the blood type of the licensee; 2548, relative to prohibiting the issuance of sporting or hunting licenses to any person who is color blind; 2550, relative to requiring all applicants for a sporting and hunting license to be examined as to ■eyesight, for color blindness and ability to handle firearms; and 2778, relative to providing that applicants for hunting licenses furnish evidence that they are not color blind. Said division shall report to the general court the results of its in- vestigation and study, and its recommendations, if any, together with drafts of legislation necessary to carry such recommendations into effect, by filing the same with the clerk of the house of representatives on or before the fourth Wednesday of December, nineteen hundred and sixty-three. 6 HOUSE No. 3550. [Apr.

ISSUANCE OF FREE LICENSES Introduction. Since Senate document 447* and House documents 297 and 749 all deal with the issuance of free hunting, fishing, sporting or trapping licenses, they will be considered jointly in a study of free license policies in Massachusetts and other states. Existing Laws Regarding Free Licenses The last paragraph of clause (1) of section 8 of chapter 131 of the] ) General Laws, as amended by chapter 466 of the Acts of 1959 provides as follows; “No fee shall be charged for any license issued under this clause to a person over the age of seventy or for a fishing license issued to a person seventy years of age or one who is a recipient of old age assistance granted under Chapter One Hundred and Eighteen A, or to a person who is blind, or to a person who is a paraplegic.” In 1962, 16,215 free licenses were issued in the aforementioned categories. The licenses, if purchased, would have contributed $111,173 to the Inland Fisheries and Game Fund. Bills Referred to this Study. The net effect of Senate bill 447 and House bills numbered 297 and 749 would be to further expand the number of persons eligible for free licenses. Senate document 447 would issue free all three types of licenses to those over the age of 65, to a person who is blind, or to a person who is a paraplegic. The net effect of this bill would be to lower the age from seventy to sixty-five, and automatically would include those not on old age assistance. It would also make the blind and paraplegics eligible for free hunting and trapping li- censes. House document 297 would issue a free license of all types to those over sixty-five, while the intent of House document 749 is to make persons collecting social security benefits eligible for a free fishing license. Persons in the sixty-five to seventy-year bracket currently con- tribute to the Inland Fisheries and Game Fund by their purchase of a hunting or fishing license at $4.25, or by the purchase of a com- bination license at $7.25.

The texts of bills referred to in this study are contained in Appendix A 1964.] HOUSE —No. 3550. 7

Free Licenses Issued in Other States. Questionnaires were sent to 49 states requesting information regarding the issuance of free licenses. Completed forms were returned by 36 states. Of the 36 states replying, 17 issued no free licenses based on the age of the recipient, nine issued them at age seventy, while ten set a free license minimum age below seventy. Blind persons received free licenses in 14 states, as is done in the case of fishing licenses in Massachusetts. Three other states had provisions for welfare recipients. Seven states issued no free licenses to anyone, while a few others offered free licenses to severely dis- abled veterans, etc. The majority of respondents were against issuing any free licenses, only two implying they looked upon them favorably. The principal objection voiced was that the funds lost to the resource agency by the granting of free licenses were substantial and reduced their ability to perpetuate and enhance the fish and wildlife resource being used by the license holder. While the cost of a license to the individual was but a small percentage of the amount spent by the hunter or fisherman during the course of a year, the effect on the state agency was severe. This loss of revenue was especially serious in those states relying solely on license sales for their source of state funds as is the case in Massachusetts. The following brief comments contained in the completed ques- tionnaires illustrate the trend of thought on the subject of free licenses in other states:

“Plan to abolish free licenses to old and blind and require regular license’ Utah. ‘Should be kept to a minimum” Vermont. ‘Class distinction” South Dakota. ‘Decided negative impact on revenue” Oregon. ‘Costs us revenue” Georgia. ‘5300.000 loss in revenue, but still desirable” Texas

“Free licenses to elderly unjustified . . . such a small concession to each one but total penalizes agency trying to improve sport the elderly enjoy” Virginia. * “Undesirable” Indiana. “Not in favor as granting free licenses to one group creates requests from other groups, resulting in progressive loss of revenue” Arkansas. ” “Should be held to a minimum West Virginia “Any increase in free licenses seriously affects operations” New Jersey. “Giving free licenses to everybody over 65 automatically assumes they’re all ready for the relief rolls, which isn’t so” Michigan. 8 HOUSE — No. 3550. Apr.

“Legislature reimburses us for all ‘free’ licenses” Maine. “Cuts into our sole support” Arizona. “Free licenses to elderly persons a detriment” New Hampshire. “Would be a drastic reduction in revenue” Maryland. “Against free licenses as they lead to costly extensions of the privilege to other groups” New Mexico. “Young people and oldsters receiving free licenses is an excessive dram on re- ources for which they are not paying. As longevity is increasing, we feel minimum age for old folks’ free licenses should be increased” Idaho. “Oppose free licenses as a matter of principle” California “Do not use free licenses and don’t intend to” Kansas. “Not desirable; decreases revenue” Washington. ) “Opposed on principle; anyone using resources should help pay costs of manag- ing those resources” Missouri. Discussion„ The laws in Massachusetts presently in effect grant free licenses to persons over seventy, to persons on old age assistance, to the blind, and to paraplegics. A nationwide survey indicates that two out of every three states follow similar or less liberal policies relating to free licenses. The Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Game re- ceives no appropriation from the General Fund, relying on the sale of hunting, fishing, and trapping licenses for its state appropriation. A serious drop in revenue would occur if persons between sixty-five and seventy years of age were granted free licenses. This loss of revenue would become increasingly serious because elder citizens will in the future make up a larger proportion of the population. There seems to be no real justification for granting free licenses to any group solely on the basis of age or physical condition. These conditions do not automatically imply an inability to pay. The truth is that if these people can afford to finance hunting and fishing expenditures, they can also afford the small cost of a license. There appears to be little justification for releasing any group of citizens from their responsibility to contribute something to the support and management of the resources on which their enjoyment depends. To our knowledge, no other permit or license required of an indivi- dual is granted solely because the individual has reached a certain age or has a specific physical condition. Granting of free hunting and fishing licenses represents a form of largess on the part of the State which it can ill-afford to grant. Revenue from these licenses represent a major share of the income on which an agency depends for its support. W ith costs rising and revenues decreasing, as is the case in Massachusetts, while urbaniza- 1964.] HOUSE —No. 3550. 9 tion, industrialization and other factors compound the problems of providing hunting and fishing, the Division of Fisheries and Game needs all the revenue it can obtain just to continue operations even without needed expansion such as land acquisition. The free license, while only a token advantage to the recipient, is a serious monetary threat to the agency charged with the management of a priceless resource. In view of this, and in recognition of the pressures that can be brought to bear by special interest groups desiring free licenses, an |obvious solution would be for the Legislature to grant issuance of free licenses to specific groups only when it makes provision for the appropriation of monies from the General Fund to reimburse the Inland Fisheries and Game Fund for the loss of revenue represented bv such licenses

Recommendations. It is recommended that no additional groups be made eligible for free licenses under section 8 of chapter 131 as amended, unless legis- lation making such a group or groups eligible also provides that pay- ment be made to the Inland Fisheries and Game Fund from the General Fund lor the value of each free license issued.

Opening of the Fishing Season. Introduction. Under section 45 of chapter 131, the Director of the Division of Fisheries and Game has the power, with the approval of the Board, and fc Lowing a public hearing, to regulate the takinsr of certain fish. The season in force under this section at the time of the introduction of House bill 753 provided that the fishing season on ponds opened on the third Saturday in April and that the season on streams opened on the last Saturday in April. House bill 753 would open the season on April 19, Patriot’s Day.

Discussion. The split opening date, in effect for two years, has proven un- popular, and to some extent impractical. Originally intended to allow a delay in stream stocking of trout until after the heaviest spring run-off, while allowing early fishing on ponds, the split season caused confusion and lawbreaking. 10 HOUSE — No. 3550. [Apr. 1964.

This lack of observance of the later opening day on streams was widely noted among school children In many cases, the fishing season on streams was closed during their spring vacation period. When the situation did not substantially improve during its second year in effect, the Division of Fisheries and Game Administrative Board scheduled a public hearing for September 20, 1963 to con- sider a change in the opening date of the fishing season. A news release announcing this hearing was issued on August 29, 1963. At the well-attended hearing, a single opening date was unani- mously favored. Since most school vacations followed the third Saturday in April, this date was the date most favored. This date would fall from April 15 to April 21 and was considered superior to April 19 because for many persons April 19 was a workday and a two-day opening weekend was generally believed more desirable than a single opening day often falling during the middle of the week. Trout from state hatcheries, it was explained, will be stocked each spring as water conditions become favorable, without undue regard to the opening day of the fishing seasonicason On September 24, 1963, a news release announced the decision of the Board to change the opening day of the fishing season to the third Saturday in April on both ponds and streams This change in regulations has been incorporated into Chapter 131 and has been included in the law abstracts to be given license buyers in 1964. Recommendations. It is recommended that no action be taken relating to the opening date of the fishing season. The opening date has been changed as provided under the authority of section 45 of chapter 131. The date chosen, the third Saturday in April, is acceptable to the Divi- sion of Fisheries and Game and to the fishing public as evidenced at the public hearing held September 20, 1963. The general intent of House bill 753 has been substantially achieved.

I HOUSE No. 1286

Cf)t Commontoealti) of 6®assaci)usctto

A REPORT

of the

DIVISION OF MARINE FISHERIES RELATING

TO PROHIBITING THE TAKING OE FISH FOR COMMERCIAL USE IN QUINCY BAY AND OTHER AREAS.

Under Chapter 64 of the Resolves of 1963.

December, 1963

f

]

C6e Commontoealtf) of f^assadjusetts

Boston, Massachusetts, December, 1963 To the Honorable House of Representatives I herewith submit a report upon the history, present condition, effects of proposed legislation and recommendations affecting com- mercial fishing in Quincy and Hingham Bays. This report was prepared by Biologists Frank Grice and Dr. Robert F. Hutton, and myself. Respectfully submitted,

FREDERICK C. WILBOUR, Jr. Director.

I ) Che Commonwealth of Massachusetts

RESOLVE AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE INVESTIGATION.

I OLVE PROVIDING FOE AN INVESTIGATION AND STUDY BYt THE DIVISION OF Marine Fisheries relative to Prohibiting the Taking of Fish for Commercial Use in Quincy Bay and other Areas. Resolved, That the division of marine fisheries in the department of natur resources is hereby authorized and directed to make an investigation and study if t subject matter of current house document numbered 1286, relative to pro- biting the taking of fish for commerciallercial use ini Quincy Bay, Hingham Bay Wey louth Fore River and Weymouth Back River. Said division shall report tc the general court theresults of its investigation and study, and its recommendations. t ler with drafts of legislation necessary to carry such recommendations intc ff ;t, by filing the same with the clerk of the house of representatives on or before the f :ourth Wednesday of December in the current year ipproved May 6, U

Introduction.

This study has been conducted by biologists of the Division of Marine Fisheries. It should be stated that no funds were made available to the Department for purposes of this study, so that this essentially consists of existing information gathered under cither studies. The area affected by House No. 1286 is defined as Quincy Bay, Weymouth Back River, Weymouth Fore River and Hingham Bay (see Figure 1). This includes the coastal water; south of Moon Head and Long Island and south of a line to Pern berton Point, in Hull and thence south along the westerly shore of Hull to the Hingham line. Fortunately part of the area in question (Quincy Bay) is now under intensive study by the Estuarine Re- search Project of the Division of Marine Fisheries. Also, this area has been the subject of extensive blackback flounder investigations for the past several years. Information on the extent and scope of the sport fishery in this area has been taken from the Massachusetts Marine Sport Fisheries Inventory published in 1961 by the Division of Fisheries and Game. Definitions. Chapter 130, General Laws Relating to Marine Fish and Fisheries defines “Fish” as any animal life inhabiting the ocean or its connecting waters including any crustacean or marine fish, whether free swimming or free moving, and any shellfish or sea worms, whether or not imbedded in the soil. Thus House No. 1286 would prohibit the taking, for commercial purposes, of all species of fish, shellfish, seaworms, lobsters, and crabs from the designated area. Present Restrictions. Several acts currently prohibit or limit various commercial fisheries activities in part or all of this area. They are as follows: 9 Chapter 107, Acts of 1911, Section 1. It shallbe unlawful for any person to prac- tice beam trawling in Boston Harbor or to take or attempt to take anv fish by that method. This act includes the northeastern portion of Quincy Bay and therefore pro- hibits trawling in that portion. Chapter 477, Acts of 1949, Section 1. It shall be unlawful, except between Novt ber first and the following March thirty-first, both dates inclusive, for any person Contribution No. 4, MassachusettsDivision of Marine Fisheries, Department of Natural Resources, Boston 16 HOUSE —No. 3550. Apr. to use beam or otter trawls to drag for fish in that part of the territorial waters of Massachusetts lying between a line extending from the water tower on Winthrop Head through the Graves Light and a line drawn from the Gurnet Light to Race Point Light to the Marine boundary of the commonwealth. This act includes those waters easterly of Quincy and Hingham Bays out to the three mile limit and restricts all dragging between April 1 and October 31 inclusive, Chapter A63, Acts of 1959, Section 1 . It ihall be unlawful to take flounders or any other ground fish in the waters lying in; from a line drawn from Pemberton Point, in the town of Hull, to Point of Pines in the city of Revere, by beam trawl or any apparatus other than a hook and line or an ordinary trawl. This act includes all but the eastern edge of Quincy Bay and therefore restricts netting for ground fish within Quincy and Hingham Bays > Chapter 98, Acts of 1913,Section 1. It shall beunlawful to fish or for that purpose to set any line trawl, seine or net of any kind in the main ship channels in Boston Harbor. This act includes the northeast portion of Quincy Bay and outlaws line trawli and all nets in that area Chapter 27, Acts of 1916,Section 1. No person shall set, draw, use, or attempt t set, draw, or use any net, seine, trap or other device for catching any fish by other than a naturally or artificially baited hook in any waters southerly of a line drawn from the westerly point of Hull mainland to Windmill Point, so-called, to the most easterly point of Peddocks Island; thence following the easterly shore of Peddocks Island at highwater mark to the most southerly point of said Peddocks Island, thence across the Back channel, so-called, to the most northerly point of Hough’s Neck, or in any cove, bay inlet or tributary thereof: provided, that the selectmen of Hingham, Weymouth and Hull may, by jointaction, grant permits for the pur- resaid within such waters, with such restrictions as, in their judgment, will prevent the same from constituting or causing a nuisance: and they mav at ar timerevoke any such permits. The provisions of this act shall not prohibit the use )f traps for the catching of lobster This act restricts all fishing except by hook and line in all of the areas except Quincy Bay, and with the exception that special permits may be issued by joint action of the three towns involved

In effect, the above five acts restrict all beam trawling for ground I fish in the area and restrict all forms of netting in all except Quincy Bay. { Existinn fisheries } At present this area supports five different fisheries of some im- portance. Based on participation, the largest fishery involved is recreational fishing, with flounder, cod, and mackerel being the most numerous species taken. A total of six boat rental facilities with 180 to 200 boats available for hire are present in the area. Several party boats also operate out of Quincy and Hingham bays. An economically valuable soft-shelled clam fishery exists on the 1964.] HOUSE No. 3550. 17

tidal flats in this area. In 1962, the U. S. Bureau of Commercial Fisheries in Gloucester reported that 10,215 bushels of clams with a wholesale value of $74,850 were taken in this area. This shellfish industry employed nine master diggers and 116 subordinate diggers. Over 50 per cent of the clams processed through the state-operated shellfish purification plant at Newburyport came from this area. Additional clams are harvested for home consumption. A small commercial fishery for lobsters and crabs exists in this area. In recent years the harvest of edible crabs has fallen drasti- cally for unknown reasons, however, but in 1953 this industry harvested approximately $lOO,OOO worth of crabs, most of which came from the Boston harbor area. A small line trawl fishery for blackback flounders is conducted in Quincy Bay and that portion of Boston harbor not closed to all fishing. The economics of this fishery are not available since these fish are landed in Boston and are totaled in with other fishery land- ings. A menhaden seine fishery exists although it is restricted to only a part of Quincy Bay. Presently the area open to seining is so limited that this fishery has been largely forced out of the area. Only four or five menhaden boats now operate out of Gloucester. A spokesman for this industry estimated that in 1962 about 5,000 tons of men- haden could have been harvested from Quincy Bay and Hingham Bay; this would have amounted to $llO,OOO to the fishermen. It would appear that the total annual value of commercial fishing in this area is in excess of $lOO,OOO and that the future potential is even higher since an economically valuable resource in the form of menhaden is largely untouched. Effect of Proposed Legislation. As previously stated House, No. 1286 would eliminate all com- mercial fishing in this area. This would have the following effect on each of the fisheries: 1. Sport fishery. Very little beneficial effects; no detrimental effects. Since this area is already closed to otter trawling, no species sought by sport fishermen are taken in significant numbers by commercial netters. The line trawl fishery does harvest blackback flounders, which are also the most important sport fish species, but past tagging studies clearly show a low utilization of this species by the combined fisheries. In the Boston harbor area as a whole, tag returns over a 18 HOUSE— No. 3550. [Apr.

two to three year period averaged only 20 per cent for flounder tagged in 1960 and 1961. Because of the type of nets employed, menhaden seiners do not take ground fish such as flounder or cod. Mackerel, which are sought by sport fishermen, may be taken by seines, however, men- haden boats do not take any number of mackerel because of a lack of facilities for storing market fish. 2. Shellfish. A very valuable clam industry would be eliminated by House No. 1286. This industry employed more than 125 men on a part or full time basis in 1962 in Quincy, Hingham, Weymouth and Hull. This shell fishery has little or no effect on other sport or commercial fishing activities. 3. Lobsters and crabs. The relatively small lobster and crab fishery would be eliminated. Since this fishery has little bearing on recreational fishing or any other fishery there is no valid reason for its elimination. 4. Line-trawl fishery. The small line-trawl fishery presently operating would be eliminated. As previously pointed out the total harvest of flounders does not warrant further protection at this time. 5. Menhaden fishery. The presently limited menhaden fishery would be eliminated. Since this fishery involves a species not harvested by sport fishermen there appears to be little justification for its curtailment. Conclusions.

House No. 1286 would further restrict commercial fishing in an area already more than adequately protected from the detrimental effects of over-fishing. It would also eliminate shell fishing, lobster- ing and crabbing which have no significant detrimental effect, on sport fishing. Recommendation.

It is recommended that House, No. 1286 should not pass.

Dogs Molesting, Attacking, and Killing Deer. Introduction. House bill 415, in its original form, aimed to provide a measure of protection to the deer herd in Worcester County. It would, if passed, have added Worcester County to the list of counties in which conservation officers during certain periods could destroy dogs “molesting, attacking, or killing deer.” Only four towns in this 1964.J HOUSE No. 3550. 19

county were additionally placed under this law by the Legislature, however. The towns of Barre, Hardwick, Athol, and Petersham were placed under section 88A, which previously applied only to the four western counties. The conflicting views expressed on this issue indicate that an analysis of the problem should be made and the most workable solutions found. Scope of the Problem. The number of deer killed annually by dogs varies with the sever- ity of winters and the occurrence of certain snow and ice conditions in early spring. The actual kill can never be numerically ascer- tained, but it is conservatively estimated that two to five hundred deer die annually as the direct or indirect result of molestation by dogs. During late winter, crusted snow is formed by alternate freezing conditions at night and thawing during the day. Dogs can travel easily on the snow’s frozen surface, while winter-weakened deer break through. Under these circumstances, deer are soon forced to exhaustion. Escape by crossing lakes or rivers is un- available, since water areas are locked in ice. After overtaking a deer, the dogs rip the deer to pieces, not quickly, but slowly, as a rule, by attacking the deer’s hind quarters. The Division of Fish- eries and Game and the Division of Law Enforcement files contain photographs of maimed deer, some with their digestive and repro- ductive tracts strewn out on the ground with the still conscious deer awaiting death. The savagery of the attacks of these uncontrolled dogs indicates that the dogs involved constitute a potential threat to livestock as well as to wild animals. Legislation currently in effect to protect deer from such attacks is contained in sections 88 and 88A of chap- ter 131. Existing Laws Relating to Dogs Molesting Deer. Under section 88 of chapter 131, certain state officers are au- thorized to “kill a dog found chasing or hunting deer at any time, if the dog is so chasing or hunting with the knowledge and consent of the owner or keeper. ...” The italicized clause renders this statute virtually of no value since the law further provides that prima facie evidence will exist after an owner has been twice notified by the Director that his dog has been found chasing or hunting deer. lo find and identify these uncontrolled dogs three times is an im- possible task. 20 HOUSE No. 3550. kpr.

Another section of chapter 131, section 88A, applies to the counties of Berkshire, Franklin, Hampshire, and Hampden, and four towns in Worcester County. In these areas, “any person who owns, keeps, or possesses a dog which during the period from the close of the rabbit season to the first day of May in each year is found molesting, attacking, or killing deer in Berkshire County shall be punished by a fine of twenty-five dollars. An enforcement officer in the Division of Law Enforcement may, without any liability on his part, destroy any dog found molesting, attacking, or killing deer in said counties during said period.” The provisions of section 88 do not apply to these four counties. The difficulty with section 88A is that it operates during a given period regardless of need, and cannot be invoked at other times if it is needed. It also has no preventative effect in that no provision for enforced restraining of dogs is provided. In constrast to the weak, ineffectual and incomplete laws cover- ing the abuse of our deer resource by dogs is the very complete set of laws governing the control of dogs attacking livestock.

Existing Laws Relating to Dogs Worrying Livestock. While chapter 140 does not apply to wild animals, it is of interest to note the scope and type of protection which the law affords domestic animals against attack by dogs. In chapter 140, livestock and fowls are protected by sections 156, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, and 171. Under the sections cited, any person is authorized to kill a dog found out of its enclosure or owner’s immediate care if said dog is “in the act of worrying, wounding, or killing persons, livestock or fowls.” It provides authority for county, city, or town officials, or their agents, to later enter private property to kill such a dog unless the owner provides a bonded guarantee to restrain said dog for a period of twelve months. Payment by the county to the aggrieved owner of livestock or fowls for damages sustained by dogs is also provided. It further provides a reward of twenty-five dollars “for the killing of any dog I found worrying, maiming or killing . .”. livestock or fowls. . It also provides authority to direct the owner of an offending dog to either kill or confine said dog subject to penalties for non-com- pliance, and enables the county to recover from the owner of the offending dog damages which may have been paid by the county to the aggrieved owner of livestock. 1964.] HOUSE No. 3550. 21

While not directly relating to the problem of dogs attacking ani- mals, section 167 authorizes aldermen or selectmen to order that all dogs be restrained or muzzled. After publishing and posting such an order, they “may issue their warrant to one or more of the police officers or constables of such town, who shall, after twenty-four hours from the publication of such notice, kill all dogs found un- muzzled or running at large contrary to such order, and shall receive such compensation therefor as is provided in section one hundred and fifty-one.” From the foregoing, it should be apparent that Massachusetts law amply protects domestic animals from uncontrolled dogs. In comparison, laws protecting game animals are weak or incomplete. Game in the wild is owned by the Commonwealth. Agents of the Commonwealth should have at their disposal adequate statutes to protect this resource. The problem is acute only in the case of white-tailed deer for the reasons cited earlier. Other states have encountered similar conditions and have provided laws to meet the problem. The Commonwealth should accept its stewardship of a resource valued at $17,000,000 and provide the deer herd with adequate safeguards against marauding dogs.

Laws in Other States The problem of dogs molesting and killing deer is one which exists in all of the northern tier of states. The laws in other states deal more effectively with this problem than do those in Massachusetts. In New Hampshire, chapter 466 provides; “If any dog, at any time, shall maim, injure or destroy any wild animal protected by law, the owner thereof shall be fined the same amount which the statutes impose upon persons for killing the same animal contrary to law. Any law enforcement officer may kill any dog found in the act of maiming deer.” Vermont law states: “During the period between February 1 and April 30, inclusive, each state game warden is hereby authorized to kill by shooting with firearms, dogs, whether licensed or unlicensed, when in such close pursuit as to endanger the life of a deer or found in the act of wounding, maiming, or killing a deer.” Maine, New York, Pennsylvania, and Michigan have also faced this late-winter problem of dogs attacking deer by enacting stringent regulations allowing the destruction of the offending dogs by state officers. New York and Pennsylvania authorize “any person” to destroy dogs molesting deer under certain circumstances. 22 HOUSE —No. 3550. [Apr.

Discussion Current Massachusetts laws are not adequate to prevent serious losses to white-tailed deer by dog depredation. In some areas, the kill by dogs equals or exceeds the controlled harvest permitted hunters. This makes it difficult or impossible to manage the deer herd on the desired sustained yield basis. While the problem is widespread in the forested sections of the state, different laws are in effect in some counties than in others. The laws are not specific in that they do not allow for steps to be taken in certain areas at certain times as the need actually arises. None of the laws available to state officials have any vreventative value in that they provide only for action after the event of attack by dogs. There is no provision for notifying the public of the problem by the issuance of restraining orders as serious situations actually develop in specific areas. Recommendations. It is recommended that legislation be passed which is statewide in scope, which can be applied to specific problem areas at specific times, and which tends to be preventative as well as punitive. The Director of the Division of Fisheries and Game, acting on information made available to him by his wildlife management personnel and by the Director of the Division of Law Enforcement, should be empowered to restrain dogs when serious damage to the deer population is believed to be imminent. The publicity given to such a restraining order would inform the public of the problem and enable them to cooperate to reduce the losses to the deer herd. Any dogs found attacking deer during the restraining period would ostensibly be dogs belonging to no one, or belonging to persons showing no concern for the welfare of the dog or deer. Proposed Legislation. See Appendix B.

Blood Type Listing on Hunting License;

Introduction. Legislation requiring a blood type listing on hunting licenses would be of value only if it would facilitate hospital procedures and save lives. If the mass blood testing of the 120,000 hunters in Massachusetts would mean faster blood transfusions for the very 1964.] HOUSE No. 3550. 23

small number that suffer serious injuries each year, House bill No. 2310 would be worthy of passage. Discussion. However, good hospital procedure requires that a blood test be performed at the time of admission if a blood transfusion is contem- plated. Any blood type recorded on a hunting license would be ignored. Mr. Henry G. Brickman, Executive Director, Massachu- setts Hospital Association, stated in regard to this bill;

"'e question the practical value as hospitals would not accept the type listed on the licenses for fear of an error. The practice in our hospitals is to de- termine the type drawn from the patient at the time of admission. Recommendations. We find that the proposal contained in House bill No. 2310 is of no practical value and recommend that this bill be given no further consideration.

Hunting Licenses not to be Issued the Color-Blind. Introduction. House bills 2548, 2778, and 2550 would require hunting and sport- ing license applicants to submit to color vision tests, the purpose in mind being to ban the sale of such licenses to the color-blind. The bills do not take into account the broad variations in color vision, ranging all the way from slight color deficiencies to complete color-blindness.

Discussion. An act prohibiting the issuance of a sporting or hunting license to a person who is color-blind would warrant consideration if data were available which prove the color deficient hunter to be a poor safety risk. However, no information exists which suggests any

• serious accident proneness among the color-blind. Massachusetts safety color tests were conducted at Fort Devens during which color deficient observers were tested under field con- ditions. Color deficients were grouped as protans (red deficient red-green confusers) or deutans (green deficient red-green confusers). Test results indicated that the recommended “blaze orange” color was highly visible to the color deficient observers. No tests have been made with completely color-blind individuals. 24 HOUSE No. 3550. [Apr.

Persons with such achromatic vision are extremely rare, possibly a half dozen such people live in the state. It is quite conceivable that we might test our 120,000 hunters and find not one truly color-blind individual. If such an individual were found, there is little or no evidence that he would be a bad risk. Such a person would have never known color and would not de- pend on it for identification of game. (It is the tendency of some hunters to shoot at flashes of color that is causing our concern.) He would by necessity identify his targets by size, shape, and texture, better criteria than color. That this is a reasonable assump- >; tion can be implied by the ability of the truly color-blind to spot camouflage, where patterns of color are used to confuse the person with normal color vision. Recommendations. Until some proof is presented that the color-blind and/or color deficient sportsman is a poor safety risk, bills which discriminate against him should not be enacted. I Examination as to Ability to Handle Firearms, I Introduction. House bill 2550 would require, in addition to a test for color- blindness, an examination of hunting or sporting license applicants as to their ability to handle firearms. Such an act would be ex- \ tremely difficult to administer to our present standing army of 120,000 hunters. States which are working in this field are attempt- ing to examine those being recruited to the sport, i.e., by examining applicants for their first license. Discussion. I Under present Massachusetts law, a course and examination is presently available to minor applicants. Under Chapter 131, Section 7, “the Director or any city or town clerk shall issue a hunt- ing or sporting license to any minor fifteen to seventeen years of age, I inclusive, who presents to the person authorized to issue such license (a) a written statement that at all tunes \vlten hunting or target practicing other than on a duly recognized range, said minor shall be accompanied by a person twenty years of age or older; (b) evidence that said minor has held a license authorizing him to hunt in the state in a prior year; (c) or a certificate of competency as provided .” in this section . . . 1964.] HOUSE No. 3550. 25

The “certificate of competency” is obtained upon the satisfactory completion of a course of instruction in the Division of Law Enforce- ment’s “Gun Schools”. Such a course, if mandatory, would reach the majority of those persons most needing firearms instruction, i.e., minors between the ages of fifteen and eighteen. Such a course of instruction, if available on a large scale, would be a desirable requi- site for all minors seeking a license, instead of being an alternate method. It would also be of value as a general public safety measure, as a great many firearms accidents occur in the home or are unre- lated to hunting.

Recommendations. It is recommended that the “gun schools”, so-called, be expanded as a public safety-education measure. It is further recommended that when such a firearms safety program is implemented and able to handle all minor applicants for hunting or sporting licenses, that methods “a” and “b” be eliminated under Section 7 of Chapter 131, and that all minor applicants be required to obtain a certificate of competency. 26 HOUSE —No. 3550. [Apr.

Appendix A.

BILLS REFERRED TO THE DIVISION OF FISHERIES AND GAME FOR STUDY. I SENATE No. 447

By Mr. Zarod, petition of Stanley J. Zarod for legislation to lower the age at which a sporting, hunting, fishing or trapping license shall be issued with- out a fee. Natural Resources.

Cfte Commontucaltj) of cpassacfnisetts

In the Year One Thousand Nine Hundred and Sixty-Three.

An Act lowering the age at which a sporting, hunting, PISHING OR TRAPPING LICENSE SHALL BE ISSUED WITHOUT A FEE. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows: 1 Clause (1) of section Bof chapter 131 of the General Laws, 2 as most recently amended by chapter 466 of the acts of 1959, 3 is hereby amended by striking out the last paragraph and in- -4 serting in place thereof the following paragraph:—’No fee 5 shall be charged for any license issued under this clause to a 6 person over the age of sixty-five, to a person who is blind, or a who is a paraplegic. 7 to person I 1964.] HOUSE No. 3550. 27

HOUSE No. 297

By Mr. 0 Farrell of Malden, petition of George H. O’Farrell for the issuance of free sporting, hunting, fishing and trapping licenses to persons over the age of sixty- five years. Natural Resources.

Che Commontoealth of Massachusetts

In the Year One Thousand Nine Hundred and Sixty-Three

An Act providing for the issuance of certain sporting li- censes TO PERSONS OVER THE AGE OF SIXTY-FIVE YEARS WITHOUT THE PAYMENT OP A PEE. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows: 1 Clause (1) of section Bof chapter 131 of the General Laws is 2 hereby amended by striking out the last paragraph, as amended 3 by chapter 466 of the acts of 1959, and inserting in place thereof 4 the following paragraph: —■ 5 No fee shall be charged for any license issued under this clause 6 to a person over the age of sixty-five or for a fishing license issued 7 under this clause to a person who is blind or to a person who is a 8 paraplegic. 28 HOUSE No. 3550. [Apr

HOUSE No. 749

By Mr. Desßoches of New Bedford, petition of Theophile J. Desßoches that persons collecting federal social security benefits be made eligible f r free fishing licenses. Natural Resources.

Che Commontoealth of Massachusetts

In the Year One Thousand Nine Hundred and Sixty-Three.

An Act making persons on social security eligible for free FISHING LICENSES. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows: 1 The last paragraph of clause (1) of section Bof chapter 131 of 2 the General Laws, as amended by chapter 466 of the acts of 3 1959, is hereby further amended by inserting after the word 4 “seventy”, in line 2, the words: currently collecting social 5 security from the Federal government.

I 1964.] HOUSE No. 3550. 29

HOUSE No. 753

By Mr. Foley of Northampton (by request), petition of Luke F. Ryan for legis- lation to establish an open season on trout fishing commencing on the nineteenth day of April in each year and terminating on the third Saturday in October. Natural Resources.

Cbc Commontoealtj) of Massachusetts

In the Year One Thousand Nine Hundred and Sixty-Three

An Act establishing an open season on trout fishing. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows: 1 Section 45 of chapter 131 of the General Laws, as most re- -2 cently amended by section 1 of chapter 478 of the acts of 1953, 3 is hereby further amended by adding at the end thereof the fol- -4 lowing paragraph: 5 Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of this section to the 6 contrary, the open season on trout fishing in every county of the 7 commonwealth shall commence at half past four o’clock ante- -8 meridian on the nineteenth day of April in each year and shall 9 terminate one hour after sunset on the third Saturday of Octo- -10 ber in each year.

9 30 HOUSE —No. 3550. [Apr.

HOUSE No. 1286

By Mr. Shea of Quincy, petition of Charles L. Shea for prohibiting the taking of fish for commercial use in Quincy Bay, Hingham Bay, Weymouth Fore River and Weymouth Back River. Natural Resources. I Cfte Commontoealti) of a^assacf)Uoetto

In the Year One Thousand Nine Hundred and Sixty-Three.

An Act prohibiting the taking of fish for commercial use in QUINCY BAY, HINGHAM BAY, WEYMOUTH FORE RIVER AND WEY- MOUTH BACK RIVER. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows: 1 Notwithstanding any provision of general or special law to 2 the contrary, no person shall take fish for commercial purposes 3 by use of seine, drag or other method in the waters of Quincy 4 bay, Hingham bay, Weymouth Fore river or Weymouth Back 5 river. Whoever violates this section shall be punished by a fine 6 of not less than fifty nor more than one hundred dollars.

* 1964.] HOUSE No. 3550. 31

HOUSE No. 1518

By Mr. Harrington of Holden, petition of Edward D. Harrington, Jr., relative to the molesting, attacking or killing of deer by dogs in Worcester County. Natural Resources.

C&e Commontoealtl) of 60assac!msetts

in the Year One Thousand Nine Hundred and Sixty-Three

An Act relative to the molesting, attacking or killing of DEER BY DOGS IN WORCESTER COUNTY. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows: 1 Section 1. Section 88 of chapter 131 of the General Laws is 2 hereby amended by striking out the last sentence, as amended 3 by section 1 of chapter 399 of the acts of 1961, and inserting in 4 place thereof the following sentence: The provisions of this 5 section shall not apply in Berkshire, Franklin, Hampden or 6 Worcester counties.

1 Section 2. Said chapter 131 is hereby further amended by 2 striking out section 88A, as amended by section 2 of said chap- -3 ter 399, and inserting in place thereof the following section: 4 Section 88A. Any person who owns, keeps or possesses a dog 5 which during the period from the close of the rabbit season to 6 the first day of May in each year is found molesting, attacking 7 or killing deer in Berkshire, Franklin, Hampden or Worcester 9 8 counties shall be punished by a fine of twenty-five dollars. An 9 enforcement officer in the division of law enforcement of the 10 department of natural resources may, without any liability on 11 his part, destroy any dog found molesting, attacking or killing 12 deer in said county during said period. The provisions of 13 section sixteen shall not be applicable to this section. 32 HOUSE — No. 3550. [Apr.

HOUSE No. 2310

By Mr. Kingston of Springfield, petition of William J.Kingston for legislation to require that hunting licenses have the blood type of the licensee conspicuously noted upon the face of such licenses. Natural Resources. I Ci)t Commontoealtf) of sr^aosacinigetts

In the Year One Thousand Nine Hundred and Sixty-Three.

An Act requiring that hunting licenses bear upon their FACE THE BLOOD TYPE OP THE LICENSEE. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows: 1 Chapter 131 of the General Laws is hereby amended by in- -2 serting after the third sentence of section 6 the following new 3 sentence: Hunting licenses shall, in addition to the foregoing, 4 have the blood type of the licensee co?ispicuously noted upon the 5 face of such license. 1964.] HOUSE No. 3550. 33

HOUSE No. 2548

By Mr. Corcoran of West Springfield, petition of William H. York for legislation to prohibit the issuance of sporting or hunting licenses to persons who are color blind. Natural Resources.

Cf)t Commontoealtli of e^assacfcuoetts

In the Year One Thousand Nine Hundred and Sixty-Three.

An Act prohibiting the issuance op sporting or hunting LICENSES TO ANY PERSON WHO IS COLOR BLIND. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows: 1 Section 6of chapter 31 of the General Laws, as most recently 2 amended by chapter 209 of the acts of 1955, is hereby further 3 amended by inserting after the third sentence the following 4 sentence: Each sporting or hunting license, in addition to all 5 other data herein required, shall, in such form as the division 6 shall prescribe, contain evidence that the licensee has, within the 7 three months which precede the issuance of such license, been 8 examined and certified by a registered physician or registered 9 optometrist who found him not to be color blind; and no sport- -10 ing or hunting license shall be issued without such certification, 11 in writing, by a registered physician or registered optometrist.

9 34 HOUSE — No. 3550. [Apr.

HOUSE No. 2550

By Mr. Hahn of Stoughton, petition of Joseph Silva and Robert C. Hahn for legislation to require that applicants for a sporting and hunting license be examined as to eyesight, color blindness and ability to handle firearms. Natural Resources.

)l; C&e Commontoealti) of egassadnisetts

In the Year One Thousand Nine Hundred and Sixty-Three

An Act requiring all applicants for a sporting and hunting LICENSE TO BE EXAMINED AS TO EYESIGHT, FOR COLOR BLINDNESS AND ABILITY TO HANDLE FIREARMS. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows: 1 Section 6of chapter 131 of the General Laws, as most re- -2 cently amended by chapter 209 of the acts of 1955, is hereby 3 further amended by inserting after the first sentence thereof the 4 following sentence: —An application for a sporting or hunting 5 license shall contain the results of an eye examination, with 6 reference to vision and color blindness, given by a registered 7 physician or optometrist, and the results of an examination 8 given by persons authorized to do such by the division as to 9 ability to handle firearms and other weapons generally used for 10 the purpose of hunting; no sporting or hunting license shall be 11 issued unless the applicant passes the minimum standards pre- -12 scribed by the division.

% 1964.] HOUSE No. 3550. 35

HOUSE No. 2778

By Mr. Kingston of Springfield, petition of William J. Kingston that applicants for hunting licenses be required to furnish evidence that they are not color blind. Natural Resources.

Cbe Commontocaltl) of 90a0sacf)U0ett$

In the Year One Thousand Nine Hundred and Sixty-Three.

An Act providing that applicants for hunting licenses fur- nish EVIDENCE THAT THEY ARE NOT COLOR BLIND. Be it enacted by the Senate and Rouse of Representatives in General Court assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows: 1 Section 1. Section 6of chapter 131 of the General Laws is 2 hereby amended by inserting after the third sentence the follow- -3 ing sentence: —-Each applicant for a hunting license shall 4 present to the licensing agency a certified statement, made 5 within six months of the presentation, from a registered occulist 6 or optometrist, stating ihat the applicant was examined and was 7 found not lo be color blind.

1 Section 2. The examination necessary to procure certification 2 of not being color blind shall be at the expense of the licensee. 36 HOUSE No. 3550. [Apr. 1964.

Appendix B.

LEGISLATION RECOMMENDED BY THIS STUDY.

It is recommended that section 88A of chapter 131 be amended h to include the following two paragraphs; The Director of the Division of Fisheries and Game, upon the recommendation of the Director of the Division of Law Enforce- ment of the Department of Natural Resources, is hereby authorized to issue an order to restrain all dogs from running at large in any town or towns, where, in their opinion, such a restraining order is necessary to prevent dogs from molesting, attacking, or killing deer. Any such order shall be in effect forty-eight hours after publication in one of more newspapers circulated in such a town or towns. When, in his opinion, the Director of the Division of Fisheries and Game determines that such restraining order is no longer necessary, he shall by like publication rescind such order. A person failing to restrain any dog, owned, kept, or possessed by him, from running at large in any town or towns in which a restrain- ing order is in effect, shall be punished by a fine of twenty-five dollars, and a conservation officer or a member of the state police may destroy any such dog found molesting, attacking, or killing a deer without any liability on his part.