208 REPORT: OF COMMISSIONER OF FISH AND FISHERIES. 
Q. I thought you gave arather interesting description of sea-fleas.—A. I merely 
say that it isa question whether it is or was injurious to the food of fishes on the 
coast, as has been maintained. It isa question as to which we have no definite proof 
that it injures the fishes; and I am inclined to believe that it has more of a local and 
immediate effect on the fish than it does injury te the fish. 
Q. Would it not necessarily injure the shawn in its neighborhood ?—A. No, 
Q. You think not ?—A. No. = 
Q. Not if thrown over on the top of spawn ?—A. No; you might throw it over all 
day long and try to injure a load of floating spawn and you could not do it. Nobody 
has ever suggested that gurry affects the spawn. By spawn I suppose you mean 
eggs? 
Q. Yes.—A. No; nothing of the kind is to be thought of. 
Q. You quoted yesterday Mr. Whiteaves’s report. He says on page 11: 
‘In case Americans are allowed to fish in Canadian waters, the custom (said to be 
practiced by them) of splitting the fish caught at sea, and throwing the offal over- 
board, on the fishing-ground, should not be permitted.” 
A. Ido not think that I quoted Mr. Whiteaves on that point, but with regard to the 
spawning-time of mackerel in the bay. 
Q. In your report of 1872 and 1873 Mr. Milner is your assistant ?—A. Yes. 
Q. On page 19 I find this language used : 
‘* Throwing offal on the fishing-grounds.—It is the uniform testimony of all fisher- 
men that throwing offal or dead fish in the vicinity of the fishing-grounds is offen- 
sive to the whitefish, and drives him away. The whitefish is peculiarly cleanly 
in its instincts, and has an aversion for muddy or foul water of any description. Most 
fishermen regard their own interest sufficiently to be careful in this particular, while 
many careless and shiftless men injure themselves and others by dumping offal and 
dead fish anywhere in the lake where they find it convenient, reducing the catch in 
the vicinity for several months.” 
A. Yes. 
Q. Itis also stated: 
‘‘Unsalable fishes are generally thrown overboard in the vicinity of the nets.” 
You do not dissent from that opinion ?—A. No; notatall. The cases, however, are 
totally different. There are no scavengers in fresh water as there are in the sea; there 
are no sea-fleas, or sculpin, or lobsters, or anything of the kind, to clean up offal in 
fresh water, as is the case in the ocean. 
Q. In your opinion, are purse-seiners proper or improper agents for taking fish ?— 
A. I have not formed any opinion on the subject; but Iam inclined to think, however, 
that this is not a destructive mode of fishing. They destroy a good many fish, but I 
do not think that they diminish the absolute number of fish in the sea. 
By Sir ALEXANDER GALT: 
Q. Will you repeat that ?—A. I say I do not think that they affect the total number 
of the fish in the sea materially, although they destroy and waste a great many fish. 
If you will permit me, I would state my reason for this view ; it is this: Every school 
of mackerel has a large body of predatory fish attendant upon it, such as dogfish, 
sharks, and other species, which are bound to have so many fish a day. They will 
eat their one, two, or three fish a day, and if they cannot get them dead they willeat 
them alive; therefore, if a large body of young mackerel is thrown out of these purse- 
seines, besides mackerel which are rejected and worthless, the predatory fish that are 
attendant upon the mackerel will eat these dead fish, and if they do not find them 
dead they will take them alive; so it does not affect the number of fish in the sea. 
By Mr. THoMson : 
Q. Are you positive about that? Do you undertake to say that the predaceous fishes 
will, in preference to capturing live fish, which they can easily do, be content with 
dead ones?—A. I think that is very likely. 
Q. There, there—you say ‘‘ very likely” ?—A. I cannot say. Iam nota predaceous 
_ 
