The No Fee Fish and Game Stamps of California
Post-War California
California’s population grew at a tremendous rate during the decade following WWII (see Figure 5). The 44th Biennial Report, issued by the California Department of Fish and Game (DFG) for the years 1954-56, referred to the growth rate as “explosive.” According to the report, on July 1, 1946, the population was 9,559,000 and within ten years it had grown by another 4,000,000—an increase of 42 percent!
Figure 5. California’s population grew rapidly in the post WWII era, averaging over 3.5% annually through the 1960s.
The rapid growth provided a complex problem for the DFG, whose responsibility it was to protect fish and game needs. The number of sportsmen was increasing proportionately to the population and this was putting unprecedented stress on the state’s fish and wildlife resources, especially trout. According to an excerpt from a speech by DFG spokesperson Seth Gordon in 1956, “[There are now] 600,000 trout fishermen [that] comprise almost half the 1,300,000 people who buy licenses to fish in this state. In addition to this number are additional thousands of youngsters under sixteen years of age who fish without licenses.”
Complicating the situation was the fact that there was only so much fresh water in the state, and water that was developed for consumptive purposes took away from fish and wildlife habitat. Gordon continued, “Unfortunately, acts of man are rapidly decreasing the efficiency of streams as trout producers as well as actually drying up others.” Much of the postwar population growth occurred in southern California, which was short on water to begin with. It seemed clear to the public in the South that the solution was to import water from the North, which they saw as having a relative abundance. Not so obvious was the effect that such action would have on fish and wildlife.
For decades, conservations and sportsman in northern California had banded together to prevent fish habitat such as the Klamath River from being altered or diverted (see Figure 6). Now, tremendous pressure was put on the DFG to develop a water plan which would provide for southern California’s growing population, and at the same time minimize damage to the state’s fish life.
Figure 6. California Conservation League Plea, circa 1920.
The new California Water Plan that emerged in 1956 promised to greatly compromise the state fish habitat, especially that for trout. According to an excerpt from the 44th Biennial Report, “The state stands to lose a substantial segment of its migratory fish life when the plan is carried to its ultimate development.”
Faced with this prospect, the DFG resolved to increase efforts to protect natural reproduction by improving habitat and further decided that “artificial trout propagation will be used where necessary.” Many new projects including hatcheries, ladders, diversion screens and warm water lakes were planned. However, with expenditures having exceeded revenues for five straight years, the DFG was short of working capital (Program Review and Analysis of the Department of Fish and Game, July 27, 1956).
Faced with yet another estimated budget deficit for 1957-58, the California Fish and Game Commission was forced to adopt a series of recommendations calling for increased license fees and began to look at cutting back many newly developed programs. The Commissioner stated that “In order to manage and propagate wildlife resources under present conditions, it has become obvious that additional revenues must be made available to the department for that purpose.” Among the possibilities considered for increasing department income in 1958, was a trout stamp (DFG News Release, January 11, 1957).