598 U. S. BUREAU OF FISHERIES 
unpalatable. Fish there also acquire this o:ly taste. So really 
this question becomes more and more serious. It may set aside 
entirely all the statistical investigations that are made on a certain 
section. ‘There will be no scarcity or decrease in abundance of fish: 
simply, they will migrate in a different direction. They don’t go 
into these polluted or semipolluted waters. This must be taken into 
consideration. 
I think it will be absolutely necessary for the division of scientific 
inquiry to put this question of pollut:on on its program, from the 
point of view of conservation. 
Mr. Rapcuirre. It may be well to review very briefly the story of 
the bureau’s attitude toward this question. I am in sympathy with 
Doctor Galtsoff’s attitude. Some years ago the bureau sought an 
appropriation and failed to get it. About two years ago, after hear- 
ings that lasted several months, it was very evident that Congress 
was chary about taking away the rights of the States to handle these 
particular problems. There were, also two schools of thought—one 
favoring the War Department and the other the Department of 
Commerce for the study of these problems. The War Department 
won. When the act was passed finally, the War Department was 
given authority to put the law into effect, and we have been a little 
timid about stepping in. Sooner or later, however, we will have to 
enter that field. 
Mr. Hieerns. Doctor Koelz, do you see any signs of an interna- 
’ tional problem of pollution ? 
Doctor Kornz. A little in Canada. The fishermen that were ar- 
raigned on the charge of catching small fish in Lake Erie pleaded 
that the Detroit River was killing them off anyway. That is about 
the only situation, because the other lakes are too wide to have a 
general bearing. 
Mr. Hieerns. It is your opinion that pollution is localized on the 
a side of the Great Lakes and is not present on the Canadian 
side? 
Doctor Korzz. The Canadian side has no cities at all. The pollu- 
‘ tion is relatively nothing on the Canadian side. 
Mr. Serre. Doctor Galtsoff has brought up the question of what 
good are statistics if we haven’t the biological background, and I 
agree with him. However, I question the value of a biological back- 
ground without statistics. Even pollution may enter the question. 
Our yield of anadromous fishes declined earlier and more rapidly 
than our other fishes, not saying anything about the abundance. 
We have taken fewer anadromous fish in recent years than we have in 
the past. That may very well be because they are subject to river 
conditions, which, in turn, are more influenced by pollution than 
the sea. The point I wish to make is that we couldn’t even know 
we had a problem in pollution if we didn’t know that the yield had 
declined in the rivers; and if you are going to attack any problem 
in fisheries you will have to know what the yield is, and, further, 
ee el have to have a measuring stick of abundance based on the 
yield. 
Inasmuch as our problems are on the conservation of the fisheries, 
we are faced continually with the questions of the yield, fluctuation 
in the yield, etc., which can not be taken up unless we know that. 
