30 
Starting from these preconceived opinions, Rasch maintained "that 
sees which are dragged along the bottom, are very injurious apparatuses, 
and ought to be forbidden in Christianiafjord”, and more particularly that 
they are more injurious than others, such as hand-lines, pound-nets, 
traps, and the like. No doubt, it is also from these considerations, 
in addition to their own individual points of view, that the Danish com- 
mittee had got such a firm helief in the great injury done to the stock of 
fish by ground-seines and similar apparatuses, and therefore recommended, 
1) absolutely to forbid the use of certain sorts of these seines, and 2) to 
allow the use of others only outside certain "closed waters”. It should be 
mentioned distinctly that Professor Chr. Liithen, the only naturalist who 
was a member of the committee, was very sceptical about these points of 
view, particularly as to the necessity of the closed waters; hut as it was 
impossible for him to conduct any investigations to clear up the matter, he 
must content himself with this negative standpoint. He points out the fact, 
however, that, in the mean time, G. 0. Sars, another Norwegian naturalist, 
had proved that many salt-water fish, such as codfish, do not deposit their 
eggs on the bottom, as Rasch supposed them to do, hut that the roe floats 
or swims in the hody of the water, and is hatched there, consequently quite 
out of reach of the apparatuses that are dragged along the bottom. 
In 1888 the motion of this Danish committee became law in Denmark, 
though certainly in a much altered form, and it is but natural, therefore, 
that the views of the committee have, to a high degree, influenced opinions 
and views in Denmark. Of these views there is particularly one which has 
for many years, had a great influence on my ideas, viz. "that the fjords 
are not wrongly considered to he of particular importance as favourable 
spawning-grounds for certain species of fishes, and as rearing-places for 
their fry”. The words "particular importance” and ,'favourable spawning- 
grounds” should be especially noticed; but, to be sure, the committee says 
only "certain species of fishes”; we are not told which particular fishes 
are meant. 
There can be no doubt that, if the regulations of a law of fishery as 
to the protection of the fish, are not based on the correct foundation — that 
which agrees with the real conditions in the world of the fishes — then they 
will not bring about the desired results. 1 we helieve, for instance, that 
the stock of fish has been destroyed by a certain way of fishing, and there- 
fore forbid the same, the stock of fish will not be better than it was before 
the prohibition, unless it is really this certain way of fishing that has 
destroyed it. The fishery legislation in several countries affords striking 
examples of this, and they are very instructive. 
Thus, presumedly in consequence of the Report of the above mentioned 
committee, ground-seines were forbidden in Christianiafjord, im 1870, be- 
cause they destroyed the fry, etc.; only floating seines for Lerrings and 
mackerel were allowed. In 1893, G. M. Dannevig, the well-known Norwegian 
