136 



NATURE 



\pec. 14, 1876 



I think I have said enough to show how much dependence can 

 be placed on them. 



We now come to the "process of extinction of animals." Here 

 my ingenious friend should be on safe ground. His argument 

 is, as I understand it, that a species first becomes scarce on 

 the borders of the locality or area where it is found in most 

 abundance. Let me apply this rule to the herring. That fish 

 is only met with when it shows tolerably near the coast — on 

 what I presume he would call the "borders." Can he tell 

 us where the herrings go after what is called the herring season, 

 when they disappear — where the great herring centre is ? Fish- 

 ermen have a vague way of answering this question by saying that 

 they go into deep water, which strictly means somewhere out of 

 sight. Has Prof. Newton evolved more than that from his inner 

 consciousness in his study at Cambridge ? That he had given 

 five minutes' attention to the practical study of the habits of the 

 herring — to its life-history, before he gave his Address to the British 

 Association at Glasgow, I venture to doubt very much. The appa- 

 rent abundance of any fish depends very much on the success of 

 the fishery for it ; but many things may and do interfere with that 

 success. It is only within the last very few years that evidence, 

 apparently of great importance, has been obtained, pointing to 

 a relation of the temperature of the sea to the depth at which 

 the herrings swim, and consequently to the chances of their 

 coming within reach of the floating drift-nets, or otherwise. No 

 one can say, with any confidence, why fish are taken abundantly 

 by drift-net or line in one week, or even day, and very few in the 

 next. It may appear very well for Prof. Newton to talk of the 

 consideration of our sea-fisheries being " fraught with unusual 

 difficulties," but he disposes of the question as if it were one of 

 no difficulty, by saying, in his Address, that " it is highly neces- 

 sary to impose some limitation upon them" — the sea- fisheries. 

 This implies, as plainly as can be, that, notwithstanding the 

 "unusual difficulties," he has quite made up his mind on the 

 subject. 



Again, he says, " I have found that the grumblers among the 

 fishermen commonly assign some specific cause for their com- 

 plaints, be that cause real or imaginary. Their assignment of 

 any cause is purely a matter of opinion with them." Is not Prof. 

 Newton aware that very many of the fishermen who gave 

 evidence before the Commissioners stated these matters of 

 opinion simply as matters of fact ? The history of the trawl- 

 ing question is quite sufficient to prove this. He then says, 

 "Their statements [those of the fishermen] as to the increase or 

 decrease of fishes relate to a matter of fact within their know- 

 ledge." Does he know the meaning of " conflicting evidence," 

 for which he gives a separate column in his tables ? If one 

 fisherman says fishes are increasing in a district and another says 

 they are decreasing, are they both to be considered as speaking 

 of a matter of fact within their knowledge ? 



In the matter of the extent of the inquiry under the Sea 

 Fisheries Commission, I must keep my friend to the point. 

 My stated objection to Prof. Newton's address was that in it 

 he clearly spoke of a decline as a fact, and of the Sea Fisheries 

 Commissioners being unable to find any remedy for it — " There 

 was nothing to be done with our Sea Fisheries but to leave 

 things alone." No possible refuge under the expressions in 

 his Address will prevent this meaning being obvious. 



I now come to this statement : — "It is quite compatible with 

 an increased supply of fish that there may be an actual decrease 

 '\K\.^^ stock oi fishes." It may be so j but as, at all events, in 

 the important drift-net and line-fisheries, the capture of the fish 

 depends entirely on their chancing to come in the way of the nets 

 or baits, and there is no hunting them down as there is with 

 game on land, the probability of such a case does not appear to 

 be very gieat. Of course, Prof. Newton will admit that the 

 converse proposition is equally sound — that a decreased supply of 

 fish may be compatible with an increased stock in the sea. 

 There may be millions of herrings in the British seas without our 

 fishermen finding them out j in fact, there must be, for it is only 

 during a certain season in each year that the fishermen meet 

 with them, and, as they will themselves admit, ' ' luck " has then 

 a great deal to do with it. 



The " practical mischief likely to result " from such agitation 

 as his Address might stir up is this — the fishermen may fear some 

 new regulation for the size of mesh they use in particular fisheries, 

 and be afraid to order new nets of the old pattern when they 

 are urgently wanted, as was the case in 1863 ; for a mile 

 and a quarter of herring nets, or two^miles and a half of mackerel 

 nets, are very much more costly articles than the compa- 

 ratively small nets used for salmon-fishing in the rivers. The 



salmon fishers, as it is, are sufficiently bothered with inquiries 

 and alterations of bye-laws. 



Prof Newton can find}no new facts in my book on "Deep- 

 Sea Fishing," supporting my belief that our sea fisheries are 

 not falling off; but I may mention that I have shown from 

 official returns that since the Commissioners reported, there 

 has been a vast increase in the number of the most inirortant 

 class of fishing-boats, used respectively for the trawl, drift, and 

 line-fisheries ; and I believe most people wil consider that when, 

 for years in succession, more money is invested by the fishermen 

 generally in boats and gear — by the persons who Prof Newton 

 says know more about fishing matters than he does — and the 

 general supply to the markets does not fall off, but the contrary, 

 there is not much evidence of the stock of fishes in the sea 

 becoming exhausted. That the fisheries at particular places 

 have fluctuated is well known, and if we knew more about what 

 affects the movements of fish, this might perhaps be explained. 

 The reason why the fishermen were| so nmch in favour of the 

 Sea Birds' Preservation Act was simply because the congrega- 

 tion of sea birds over the shoah of fish often told the fishermen 

 when their fishing was likely to be successful. Prof. Newton, 

 I believe, was anxious to prevent certain species of sea-bird 

 having the protection of the Act, but, unless I am greatly mis- 

 taken, he was strongly in favour of the general principle of the 

 Bill. "What particular species of fish is devoured by any par- 

 ticular species of protected sea-bird does not affect my argument ; 

 but I may suggest that the protected gulls are surface-feeders, 

 and mackerel, herrings, pilchards, and sprats, besides plenty of 

 young fishes of other species, are commonly considered as sur- 

 face-swimmers. The collection of gulls over the shoals of fish 

 is spoken of by the fishermen on many parts of our coast as one 

 of the "appearances of fish." 



The last point to be considered is Prof. Baird's Report on the 

 American Sea Fisheries. Prof. Newton says the decrease of 

 these fisheries on the Atlantic coast of America is therein treated 

 as a fact beyond denial. He is quite correct here ; but he adds 

 that " 'overfishing' is unquestionably assigned as the chief cause 

 of that decrease." 



I have Prof. Baird's Report for 1872 and 1S73 now before 

 me. I must content myself with a few extracts from it. 

 Among other fishes he mentions. Prof. Baird gives a good 

 notice of the alewife or fresh-water herring, and speaks of 

 how valuable it has been in attracting the deep-sea fishes to 

 the shores ; he points out how the alewife has diminished, owing 

 to the dams in the rivers preventing the ale wives proceeding up 

 to their spawning grounds some v^ay from the sea, this fish 

 having much the same habits as the salmon and the shad. As a 

 consequence the myriads of young fish which used formerly to 

 come down to the sea are now not to be met with at the mouths 

 of the rivers. He goes on to say, at page 12 : — " It would, 

 therefore, appear that while the river fisheries have been depre- 

 ciated or destroyed by means of dams or exhaustive fishing, the 

 codfish have disappeared in equal ratio. This is not, however, 

 for the same reason, as they are taken only by the line, at a rate 

 more than compensated by the natural fecuttdity of the fish." 

 (The italics are mine. ) At p. 60 Prof. Baird says, after speaking 

 of the value of the alewife as food for salmon, trout, and other 

 freshwater fishes : " It is in another still more important connec- 

 tion that we should consider the alewife. It is well known that 

 within the last thirty or forty years the fisheries of cod, had- 

 dock, and hake along our coast have measurably diminished, and 

 in some places ceased entirely. . . . Various causes have been 

 assigned for this condition of things, and among others, the 

 alleged diminution of the sea-herring. After a carelul considera- 

 tion of the subject, however, I am strongly inclined to believe 

 that it is due to the diminution, and in many instances to the 



extermination of the alewives " (or freshwater herring) 



" We know that the alewife is particularly attractive as a bait, 

 especially for cod and mackerel. . . . The coincidence, at least, 

 in the erection of the dams and the enormous diminution in the 

 number of alewives, and the decadence of the in-shore cod- 

 fishery, is certainly very remarkable. It is probable, also, that 

 the mackerel fisheries have suffered in the same way, as these 

 fish find in the young menhaden and alewives an attractive 

 bait." 



Unless Prof. Baird has in a later report expressed an entire 

 change of opinion, I think I am justified in believing that Prof. 

 Newton is as unable to comprehend the question of the American 

 sea-fisheries as he is that of our own. 



My friend has told me in his usual good-humoured manner 

 that neither of us will ever convince the other, and I am cer« 



