66 COMMISSIONERS OF INLAND FISHERIES. 



lobster pots of such a size that the large lobsters would not be able 

 to get into the pots. 



The following reasons have been advanced in opposition to the 

 double gauge law (these arguments are chiefly concerned with the 

 large limit) : — 



Objection 1. Since the market can be supplied only by lobsters 

 which are from 8 inches to 13 inches in length the drain upon this 

 class will be so great that few if any will reach the exempt class. 



In opposition to this it may be stated that at the present time all 

 lobsters that are over 9 inches in length — the very large ones as well 

 as the intermediate sized — may be caught and yet there are very 

 many over 13 inches — sometimes surpassing the 20-inch length. 

 If with unrestricted catching many lobsters reach this length, is 

 it not unreasonable to suppose that by restricting the size none or 

 extremely few will pass that size? Furthermore, no one has ever 

 found a limit to the length of time a lobster may live. We do know 

 that they live to a greatly advanced age and therefore this class of 

 large breeding lobsters will be continually growing in number. Then 

 again the supply of lobsters according to our plan is not to 

 depend entirely upon this class but is to be augmented by artificial 

 rearing. 



Objection 2. By preventing the fishermen from catching the large 

 lobsters an injustice is done them inasmuch as these lobsters weight a 

 great deal and are consequently valuable. 



Even in localities where large lobsters abound it is found that 

 those from 8 to 9 inches in length are about six or eight times as 

 numerous as are those over thirteen inches. As a compensation for 

 throwing away these large lobsters our law proposes that the fisher- 

 men be allowed to market the 8-inch to 9-inch lobsters, which at 

 present are illegal property. Furthermore, it is not contended that 

 this law will not to a certain extent restrict the catch, but what 

 your Commission docs contend is that very little injury is done in 

 proportion to the future benefit to the industry. The question for 



