136 Part III. — Tiventieth Aiiimal Report 



of the areas selected, as explained below, and eight because there was 

 reason to believe that a mistake had been made in regard to the place 

 of capture. The twenty-two landings omitted because the fish were 

 caught in moi-e than one area were all from the North Sea, so that of 

 the 1838 landings, when the place of fishing was ascertained, 1813, or 

 98'6 per cent., were from the North Sea. This may be taken approxi- 

 mately as the proportion of North Sea shots at Aberdeen in 1901, 

 because although the records were obtained fi'om certain vessels 

 habitually fishing at Iceland — and the proportion of Iceland shots is 

 not therefore duly represented — those regarxled (and omitted) as 

 doubtful were mostly from the North Sea, In the present year (1902) 

 the pi'oportion is probably less, because of the gi'eater development of 

 the fishing at Iceland, and apparently also on the West Coast. 



An endeavour was made to procure the information as to the place 

 of capture fi-om a due proportion of the smallei' and larger vessels, i.e., 

 those fishing mostly near the coast and those fishing principally at a 

 distance, and that this proportion was approximately represented is 

 .shown by the fact that the pei'centage of landings recorded to the total 

 landings, and the percentage of the fish caught by the vessels in 

 question to the total fish caught are nearly the same — viz., 21*3 and 

 21 '6. The total quantity of fish landed by trawlers at Aberdeen in 

 1901 was 992,167 cwts., and the quantity landed by the vessels included 

 in the special return was 214,174 cwts.; the average quantity per 

 landing in the latter case was 119'6 cwts., and among the remaining 

 vessels 117"6 cwts. 



Both from the quantity of fish taken and the number of voyages 

 it is, I think, evident that the information obtained as to the 

 productiveness of difierent fishing grounds is likely to be of considerable 

 value if continued for a seiies of years, since particulars of the duration 

 of the fishing operations are at the same time recorded. Moreover, the 

 percentage of vessels from which the returns are obtained — although it 

 would be better if it were higher — is, I think, sufiiciently high to show 

 substantially the operations of the whole fleet of trawlei's landing fish 

 at the port. 



The particulars of the place of fishing was ascertained for me by 

 the collector of tJie fishery statistics, Mr. James Robb, usually in the 

 form of the coiu-se steered and the distance run by the vessel from port 

 or from Buchan Ness, this information being placed on a form opposite 

 the detailed record of the catch, with the date, number of hours fishing, 

 and the name of the vessel. The entries for each month were then 

 numbered consecutively ; those which showed the place of fishing to be 

 beyond the limits of the North Sea, e.g., the North or West Coast, 

 Faroes or Iceland, were omitted, as were also those in which the fish 

 were caught at more than one place, if the places were not within the 

 same area, selected as a unit (see below) and those about which any doubt 

 existed as to whether the place of fishing had been correctly ascertained. 

 With regard to the latter, reliance was chiefly placed on Mr. Robb's 

 great experience both of the catches and of the trawlers, a query being 

 placed against all entries that appeared in the least doubtful. 



In ari'anging the information on charts it was at first supposed that 

 the number of the entry on the form might be placed on the chart at 

 the place where the fish were caught, and the forms showing the detailed 

 catches published. It was, however, found to be impossible, even with 

 the largest charts procurable, to find room for the numbers in some 

 areas, and the publication of the detailed landings would occupy a great 

 deal of space ; while, on the other hand, the information in regard to 

 any particular area would not be very clearly exhibited. It was thei^e- 



