2002 AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 



of years to some extent ; I could not exactly say bow long. ID a rough 

 guess, I would say, for twenty-five or thirty years. 



Q. During this time if they are really so injurious, they have had 

 ample opportunity for doing a great deal of damage ? A. They were 

 somewhat few in number at first, but their number has been increased. 



Q. And in other words, the evil they do has been increased ? A. I 

 thiuk so. I will tell you what I think the evil is more particularly 

 those who are able to build weirs, do so, and the hook fishermen, per- 

 haps, will not then do so well as has been the case with them pre- 

 viously. 



Q. In your judgment, they injure he fishing? A. I think that they 

 do, along the coast. 



Q. Has this not had the effect of making your inshore fisheries, say 

 during the last ten years, very much worse than they were formerly f 

 A. Well, our inshore fisheries are not so good as they have been in some 

 times past; but again, when you look at the fish, you will find that they 

 have changed their course from time to time. They may be abundant 

 in one place one year, and the year following they may not be found 

 there. 



Q. Do you wish the Commission to understand that these traps do 

 not injure the inshore fisheries at all ? A. I think that they do injure 

 these fisheries. 



Q. Then this injurious process has been in operation for twenty-five 

 years ? A. Yes ; to some extent. There were only a few of them at 

 first. 



Q. And are your fisheries not getting worse every year, owing to this 

 bad and destructive mode of fishing ! A. If we admit that it is a de- 

 structive mode of fishing, certainly, that would be the effect from year 

 to year ; but I may fish for a certain kind of fish this year, and next 

 year I may do better in the same fishery, owing to the greater abundance 

 of the fish. 



Q. Do you wish the Commission to understand that a destructive mode 

 of fishing does in reality no injury to the catch of fish! A. I did not 

 say so. 



Q. Do you wish the Commission to understand that if a destructive 

 mode of fishing is pursued this year, the chances are that there will be 

 a superabundant supply of fish next year! A. There is a possibility of 

 this being the case. 



Q. I want to deal with facts. Is it not probable that this kind of 

 fishing will destroy the fisheries entirely ? A. I do not believe that it 

 will do so entirely ; but I think that it does injure the fisheries. 



Q. But would it not destroy the, fishery, as a fishery, and so far as a 

 profitable fishing business is concerned? A. O, I do not know about 

 that ; but I wish to be understood to say that, so far as pounds and 

 nets are concerned, they certainly diminish the supply offish along the 

 shore. 



Q. And if this is done from year to year the supply will become more 

 and more diminished? A. Well, that is a fair way of stating it, pro- 

 vided the fish came in from year to year in the same quantities. 



Q. You have no guarantee that they will come in from year to year in 

 greater quantities ? A. But we know that this is the case sometimes. 



Q. But this would be out of the ordinary run of things? A. Yes. 



Q. And you would not attribute it to the destruction of the fish the 

 year previous? A. i?o. 



Q. During the last four or five years has not the greater quantity of 

 the mackerel caught on the American shore been taken from 5 to 6 miles, 



