244 REPORT OF COMMISSIONER OP FISH AND FISHERIES. 



carried on during the spawning-season of the lobster. In 1830, Mr. T. 

 Lundsgaard, member of the Storthing, (Norwegian Parliament,) therefore 

 made the motion to pass a law forbidding the catching or exporting 

 of lobsters from June 15 till October 1. The committee which had 

 this matter in charge proposed that the motion should be laid on 

 the table, because Mr. Lundsgaard had not produced any information 

 which might enable the committee to judge with certainty to what 

 extent this dreaded decrease of the fisheries really existed, and whether 

 the evil could be remedied by the measures that were proposed. The 

 committee likewise thought that such a measure would be too great 

 an encroachment on the rights of many places on the coast, taking 

 away from these regions their only source of income. The government, 

 however thought, that the matter was of great importance; and as 

 the report of the committee showed that only want of information had 

 prevented any action beiug taken, it requested those districts in which 

 the lobster-fisheries were carried on to have the matter examined by 

 the local officers and other competent men, and to send in a report, 

 stating whether it would be useful to pass a law on the subject; and, 

 if so, to state the objections to Mr. Lundsgaard's proposition. All the 

 reports which reached the government in answer to this request agreed 

 that the lobsters had decreased in size, but some supposed that the 

 great masses of spring-herring coming near the coast might have had 

 an influence on it, or that this decrease in the size of the lobster 

 might be caused by their young ones being disturbed by the cut- 

 ting of sea-weeds for manure; others advised not to pass any law 

 against exporting lobsters from June 15 till October 1, fearing that 

 the exports to England might thereby be hindered, as the companies 

 would naturally not consider the lobster-trade profitable unless it was 

 steady ; and the fishermen would lose their income during the time 

 when exportation was forbidden, or they would evade the law, continu- 

 ing to fish and keeping the lobsters till exportation was again permit- 

 ted. Others again raised objections based on their knowledge of the 

 natural history of the lobster, considering it doubtful whether the lob- 

 ster spawned and shed its shell during the time indicated, and even if it 

 were the case, that the time was too long.- Reports from other districts, 

 such as Stavanger, said that such a law was unnecessary, as no fishing 

 was, anyway, going on during that time. These objections to such a 

 protective law could not have much influence, especially those founded 

 on the natural history of the lobster, for they could not be proved. But 

 even the fear of an entire stoppage of the lobster-trade would be cause- 

 less, as such an event would be much more injurious to England, whose 

 inhabitants had accustomed themselves to this luxury, than to Norway, 

 which received but little money for her lobsters. From other sides it 

 was said, in favor of the law, that such a protection would be useful, as 

 the lobster very easily dies during the season when it spawns and sheds 

 its shell, although this seasou is not the same everywhere. Those who 



