PROGRESS IN BIOLOGICAL INQUIRIES, 1926 587 
My purpose is not to emphasize to you the known methods of research. I 
wish, rather, to outline the great problems; and in regard to the nature of 
protective measures I find one of these great problems. j 
To begin with, if restriction is necessary, there are many types of it. Some 
species have been protected by saving the spawning adults, others by saving 
the immature. There is no cold scientific reasoning back of these measures. 
They are restrictive, they are expedient from an economic standpoint, they are 
popular, and hence they are those that it is advisable to impose. Once restric- 
tion is granted as necessary, and as either limited in area or general in appli- 
cation, the choice of restrictive measures becomes economic and political, not 
biological. I am not speaking of the salmon, of course, in which there is but. 
one stage to restrict, but of marine fishes, many life stages of which are 
exploited. Restriction and regulation, however necessary, are not and can not 
as yet be based upon biological reasoning. 
To illustrate, is there any biological reasoning that justifies the protection of 
halibut young? They are the most abundant members of the species. They are 
scarcely touched as yet. Many of those taken would die before maturity any- 
way. As a matter of fact, however, an economic reason justifies their protec- 
tion—they are not worth as much for food, pound for pound. 
I wish to suggest here, as a biologist, that the existing relative abundance 
of the various stages or ages of fish in nature is presumably that best fitted 
for the survival of a species. That is, if a species spawns 1,000,000 eggs, that 
habit has been acquired by a natural selection to meet the conditions of the 
environment. So with the young—their numbers are adapted to conditions to be 
met. But somewhere in the cycle between egg and adult must be a stage or 
stages in which there exists the reserve power of survival. Until we know, 
then, what characters affect this reserve power our restrictions and regulations 
may be more or less arbitrary. 
There is only one sound biological principle that I can suggest. That is, that 
if mankind takes his toll before a period of great mortality, it must mean 
less to the species, proportionately, than if the toll were taken after such a 
period. That is, put concretely, if 1,000 pounds of fish exist, 100 pounds taken 
constitute only one-tenth; but if this 1,000 pounds pass through a period of 
mortality that reduces it to 500 pounds, and the toll then be taken, the toll 
of 100 pounds constitutes one-fifth instead of one-tenth. If to spawn and 
reproduce a species passes through such periods of intensified mortality, 
surely one would safely recommend that wherever possible man’s toll be taken 
before these periods. 
There is, of course, another thought—that where a species taken mostly as 
an adult declines in abundance it would be in order to protect the adult stage 
as the weakened link in the chain. But, of course, industry has its say there. 
To sum up these remarks on methods of protection, I would like to think 
that I have impressed upon you the unscientific state of our present knowledge 
and the great need of earnest study of basic principles by biologists. In fact, 
some such remarks as these may apply to all three of the great problems I 
have touched upon—in determining the trend of the abundance there is need 
for careful study, in gauging the reaction of the species to the drain of our 
fisheries and to the results of protection the possibilities and principles are 
yet to be outlined, and in devising logical methods of protection the field of 
thought and discovery is wide open. 
Looking back over that which I have thought and written, it seems to me 
that what stands out most clearly is the vast promise in this field of work 
for one desirous of thinking as he goes. The accomplishments in every essen- 
tial phase of marine fisheries science seem to be almost nil—to have been 
sadly neglected, compared with what may some day be true. There is here 
vast opportunity awaiting some clear-minded thinker in biology; and in view 
of the uncertain knowledge of the basic necessities in marine fisheries con- 
servation, no one taking that duty seriously can afford to expend his efforts 
aimlessly. 
Mr. Hicerns. Because I had the making of the plan, I took the 
liberty of preparing a paper myself, as a target for you to aim at, 
something to center our discussions on, something to carry in the 
back of our minds while we are going over each investigator’s 
individual work—the policy of the Bureau of Fisheries in regard to 
biological investigations. I call them my own ideas; at least I 
