210 EEl^ol^^iJ;^ COMMISSIONER OF FISH AND FISHERIES. 



If tbis is his opinion, be would certainly he in favor of lyrohihiting the 

 traps of Scaconnet Point. 



It will be recollected tbat bis general remarks related entirely to sea- 

 fisbing', and to those lisb that are caught in the sea, while in relation to 

 scup or tautog, be says that be did not know anything about them. 



From the statements of the trappers it would be presumed that Buz- 

 zard's Bay and Nantucket Shoals would swarm with scu}), if they all 

 arrive at the localities whither they allege they are bound. And it is 

 therefore with some astonishment I find in thereportof the Massachusetts 

 senate committee on fisheries, and of which Mr. Atwood was chairmau, 

 made April 14, 1870, the following paragraph : 



" Scup, tautog, sea-bass, striped bass, and other kinds offish that are 

 not used for bait, are caught by the weirs in our waters south of Cape 

 Cod only in small quantities, and as a secondary and incidental matter; 

 the amount of these kinds of fish caught by such weirs is too small to 

 have any considerable effect upon the increase or diminution." 



And in his remarks: 



"All agreed tbat the scup, tautog, sea-bass, and striped bass had within 

 a few years diminished in Bnzzard's Bay, but failed to show that over- 

 fishing was the cause of the diminution." 



It is a little singular that Captain Atwood, unless he refers in his re- 

 marks entireJy to sea-fishes, which seldom or never enter our rivers or 

 streams, should be so blind to the fact that many fishes have been 

 diminished by over fishing, but I am inclined to think he includes these 

 fishes also, for he says : 



" If we wish to increase and stock our inland waters, it cannot be ac- 

 complished without protection. The building of dams across the streams, 

 and throwing of deleterious substances into the waters, have diminished 

 the fish. But^ in the great sea, man cannot pollulte its waters bij anything he 

 can do.'''' 



I am inclined to apply to him the same observation he makes with 

 regard to the witnesses who appeared before his committee, just quoted, 

 and believe he willfully shuts his eyes to every fact that tends to show 

 that man can diminish any species offish by over-fishing. 



That such is the case seems too well known and understood to need 

 any illustration. Salmon have totally disappeared. The shad have in 

 manj' rivers been completely, in others nearly, extirpated. Great appre- 

 hension exists that the same effect will be produced upon the white- 

 fish of the lakes; and the report of the commissioners of river fisheries, 

 made to the General Court of Massachusetts for the year ending January 

 1, 18G1), shows that such is their belief. They say (page 17) that unless 

 fish that go to fresh water to breed are "at that time protected, they are 

 liable to extinction in the particular waters where such wholesale de- 

 struction goes on." 



Mr. Atwood, in his report of 1870, already referred to, seems to rely 

 greatlj upon the report of the British commission of 1SG5, as showing 

 the correctness of the conclusion drawn by his committee. 



This report of the British commission is very closely audiulmirably 

 criticised by M. Rimbaud, and his views seem to be fully believed and 

 adopted by the commissioners of river fisheries of Massachusetts, in 

 their report for the year ending January 1, 1870. And the joint special 

 committee of Ebode Island, in their report, made May, 1870, have quoted 

 largely from the Massachusetts report. 



Before we refer more particularly to Rimbaud's facts and conclusions, 

 let us see what Mr. Atwood's opinion is of this gentleman. He says 

 in his remarks, that — 



