566 



NATURE 



[December 30, 1920 



the central office through the same agents, as was I 

 recommended in the scientific Report on Trawling in 

 1884. Mere enumeration of the sizes of fishes on 

 board the ships, however, is insufficient. The ob- 

 servers should talie in the whole surroundings of the 

 products of the areas so as to be able to contrast 

 them with others. It is also uncertain if the pio- 

 posed comparison of the yield of the North Sea with 

 pre-war days will result m any trustworthy informa- 

 tion. Nature is superior to any influences on that 

 head, Dutch statements notwithstanding. Again, the 

 fact that much of the supply of fish-food for the public 

 of this country comes from extra-territorial waters 

 should not be held as a reason for international co- 

 operation in fishery researches. Friendly co-operation 

 between Governments is right, but it does not seem to 

 be necessary in scientific fisheries researches. Britain 

 did not attain her pre-eminence in the sea-fisheries by 

 mternational aid, nor will international co-operation 

 help her to maintain that position. The work of the 

 Dutch alone is a sufficient criticism on the supposed 

 necessity for international co-operation. 



Mr. Maurice thinks that science has not yet proved 

 the ineffectual and unnecessary nature of the closure 

 of areas of the open seaboard, such as the Moray 

 Firth. He has still to study the work of the Garland 

 and other ships, as well as various experiences since 

 Lord Dalhousie's Commission. Instead of the view 

 of the futility of one nation working alone at scientific 

 fisheries work, it may be that this is just where pro- 

 gress can best be made ; and, besides, fisheries pub- 

 lications rapidly spread information over the world. 

 Moreover, fisheries investigations are best carried out 

 at marine laboratories in the midst of fishing-boats and 

 in touch with the sea. That Great Britain continued 

 to subsidise the international scheme during the war 

 is, perhaps, of less moment than it appears when 

 the results (chiefly statistics of fishes collected at 

 ports, compiled by subordinates, and treated by the 

 chiefs on land) are duly weighed. 



There is little fear of the serious depletion of the 

 stock of fishes in the ocean, and less of man 

 successfully adding to it; Again, little is to be gained 

 by a fortuitous prophecy as to good or bad seasons. 

 The fishes are there to be captured in their seasons, 

 though there is still much to be learned about them in 

 marine laboratories and on board fishing vessels. 

 There are not a few points for investigation, for 

 instance, to be found in criticisms of the International 

 Council at its inception (1902-3). A perusal of the 

 British fisheries from early times may also be sug- 

 gestive. 



Mr. Maurice is to be commended for his friendly 

 view of independent fisheries research and of giving 

 a wide margin to Departmental work. If the Secre- 

 tary for Scotland in 1896 had embraced similar broad 

 views, one laboratory at least where the pioneer 

 scientific fisheries researches of this country were 

 done would not have been closed to-day and the 

 supply of trained voung men for the Department cut 

 off. Mr. Maurice's closing words are excellent, only 

 a Council for the National Exploration of the Sea 

 should be substituted for the International Council. 



W. C. McIntosh. 



I THANK vou for the opportunity afforded me of 

 commenting on Prof. Mcintosh's letter, and him for 

 his friendly criticism. 1 may, perhaps, be permitted, 

 without discussing all his points in detail, to develop 

 somewhat mv views regarding international co-opera- 

 tion in scientific research, which Prof. Mcintosh has 

 not, I think, quite understood. 



I cordially endorse the statement that "Britain did 

 not attain her pre-eminence in the sea-fisheries by 



NO. 2670, VOL. 106] 



international aid, nor will international co-operation 

 help her to mai/itain that position." Britain will 

 maintain her pre-eminence, I think, in the future, as 

 in the past, by the enterprise of her fishermen and 

 fishing-vessel owners. But their enterprise is directed 

 solely to the catching and marketing of fish. The 

 praciical object of research, as 1 conceive it, is mainly 

 conservation and development. I think we must admit 

 that, under existing conditions, there is a real danger 

 of the depletion of the fishing-grounds up to the point 

 at which fishing will be unremunerative, with all the 

 undesirable results which must follow from that state 

 of things. Whether we seek to forestall the danger 

 by mere restriction of fishing operations, or by 

 measures of development, or by a combination of the 

 two, what we shall in fact be aiming at is the prac- 

 tical application of the results of scientific work on 

 fishing-grounds which are open to all nations. No 

 such measures as are here suggested can be effective 

 unless they have the support of all the nations which 

 have access to fishing-grounds. Such support is most 

 likely to be accorded as a result of partnership in in- 

 vestigations and of agreement as to the conclusions to 

 be drawn from them. The International Council does 

 not claim to be above criticism, but if the necessity for 

 international co-operation be admitted, it is entitled to 

 support until a more effective organisation for com- 

 bined research can be substituted for it. 



That is one aspect of the matter, but there is 

 another. .\s a layman I am greatly impressed with 

 the vastness and the complexity of the problems of 

 the sea. In order to solve them it does not seem to 

 me to be sufficient that the different nations should be 

 working indep)endently at scientific fisheries work. 

 Where so wide a field is to be covered, co-ordinated 

 effort in a concerted programme must surely be of 

 unusual value ; in some iriquiries simultaneity of 

 observations is, I understand, of great importance. 

 "The view of the futility of one nation working alone 

 at scientific fisheries work " is not one that 1 have 

 expressed ; and if I believed that there was a serious 

 risk of national work being subordinated to the 

 requirements of international agreement, I would not 

 urge international co-operation. I do, however, hold 

 strongly that the value of much of the work of each 

 fiation depends upon its co-ordination with the work 

 of others and upon the fact that it is part of an intel- 

 ligently concerted programme of joint investigations. 

 Whether as an outcome of our investigations we shall 

 eventually be able, not merely to conserve fisheries, 

 but even to develop them, remains to be proved. I 

 will not embark upon prophecy, but I know that some 

 of my scientific friends believe that this end will 

 eventually be reached. 



In his opening paragraph Prof. Mcintosh refers to 

 the proposal to form a central scientific fisheries staff 

 for the United Kingdom. He will be interested to 

 learn that an arrangement has now for some time 

 been in operation under which the staffs of the Scot- 

 tish Fishery Board, the Irish Department, and the 

 Fisheries Department of the Ministry of Agriculture 

 and Fisheries meet at regular intervals to frame their 

 scientific programmes and to report progress, and 

 that these meetings are generally attended, to the 

 great advantage of the work, by a certain number of 

 the distinguished men of science attached to our chief 

 marine biological stations. 



I am not sure whether I am to understand that 

 Prof. Mcintosh holds that science has proved closure 

 of areas of the open seaboard to be ineffectual and un- 

 necessary. I have not consciously expressed an 

 opinion upon this subject, because, as a lavman, I 

 am unwilling to rush in where even a scientific angel 

 may be disposed to tread delicately. As a Govern- 



