In 1830, Menber of Parliament Leis Lundegard from the district 

 of Lister and f,!andel advanced the proposal for a protective loxr for 

 lotstcrs. This (proposal) led to the :.iaking of a Royal sug<jestion 

 for a lav; on the catching of lobsters whereby it should be forbidden 

 to catch or handle lobsters under eight inches in length. The Royal 

 suggestion fell through in the lov;er and upper houses* 



iiearnvhile an English company, which at that time bought lobsters, 

 eliminated their buying season in the summer :aonths (of course vyith 

 regards to quality) - and there in that district the stock remained 

 good. In another district, on the contrary, where thej' fished all 

 summer the lobster fishing was ruined. 



This led to the first protecti^/e lav/ for lobsters being set 

 dovm, and it vras put in force in 1839. This lav: protected the lobster 

 from July 15 until the end of September. This lav/ seems to have had 

 a favorable result and nov/ the fishermen desired more protection* 

 This suggestion meets opposition meanv/hile, and time after time v/as 

 defeated by the legislators - but finally the committee on foods 

 gives in - to comply vrith the vrishos of the great majority^ not because 

 they themselves believe in it. 



Afber the lav; of June 17, 1879, the snail lobsters also are pro- 

 tected and the old svimertime protective lav; is still in force. 

 Thus came about the essential support for our present lobster lav;- 

 making. I thiiJ.c that I can say that fe\T lav;s in our land have been 

 so completely understood by the fishing population as this onej 

 fishermen generally have been advised of the great value of the lav;. 



A rational regulating of the catch, such as a lav; like this 

 entails, must be said to be the first step tov/ards putting our lobster 

 stock under cultivations 



Tho question arises nov;: Shall we be in accord v;ith this? Has 

 the protection - that is to say the regulation of the catch - come 

 so far that it can be said to utilize the lobster stock v/holly 

 scientifically? I don't tliinlc it is the case; it v/ould be phenomenal 

 :if v;e had already reached ;:. perfect r^rrangement . Vie can v;itho\xt fear 

 easily go a fg-;; steps further according to the experiences we have 

 had that have enabled us to reach this (present) goal; to bring the 

 lobsters' yield up to the maximum limit that the natural conditions 

 pr bmis e . 



The question is hovr far can one go in the v;ay of restrictions? 

 Earlier the opinion V/rs that the important thing v;as that it vras first 

 and foremost necessary to add to the stock by restrictions, in that 

 .their first contention vras that a greater stock gave r. greater yield 

 than a small one. This opinion has, as a matter of course, its full 

 right - still one must be observing if his conclusions are to hold 

 true; that the yield rer.lly becomes larger; it doesn't benefit as a 

 matter of coui'se to maintain a big stock v;ith the aid of restrictions 



64 



