AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 2843 



Q. You quoted yesterday Mr. Whiteaves's Report ; he says on page 11 : 



In case Americans are allowed to fish in Canadian waters, the custom (said to be 

 practiced by them) of splitting the fish caught at sea, and throwing the otl'al overboard, 

 on the fishing ground, should not be permitted. 



A. I do not tbiuk that I quoted Mr. Whiteaves on that point, but 

 with regard to the spawning-time of mackerel in the bay. 



Q. In your Report of 1872 and 1873, Mr. Milner is your assistant " 

 A. Yes. 



Q. On page 19 I find this language used : 



THROWING OFKAL, ox THE FISHING -GROUNDS. It is the uniform testimony of all 

 fishermen that throwing offal or dead fish in the vicinity of the fishing-grounds is offen- 

 sive to the whitefish, and drives him away. The whitefish is peculiarly cleanly in its 

 instincts, and has an aversion for muddy or foul water of any description. Most fisher- 

 men regard their own interest sufficiently to be careful in this particular, while many 

 careless and shiftless men injure themselves and others by dumping offal and dead fish 

 anywhere in the lake where they find it convenient, reducing the catch in the vicinity 

 for several months. 



A. Yes. 



Q. It is also stated : 



Unsalable fishes are generally thrown overboard in the vicinity of the nets- 



You do not dissent from that opinion ? A. No ; not at all. The 

 cases, however, are totally different. There are no scavengers in fresh 

 water as there are in the sea ; there are no sea-fleas, or sculpin, or lob- 

 sters, or anything of the kind, to clean up offal in fresh water, as is the 

 case in the ocean. 



Q. In your opinion, are purse-seiners proper or improper agents for 

 taking fish ? A. I have not formed any opinion on the subject ; but I 

 am inclined to think, however, that this is not a destructive mode of 

 fishing. They destroy a good many fish, but I do not think that they 

 diminish the absolute number of fish in the sed. 



By Sir Alexander Gait : 



Q. Will you repeat that ? A. I say I do not think that they affect 

 the total number of the fish in the sea materially, although they destroy 

 and waste a great many fish. If you will permit me I would state my 

 reason for this view ; it is this : Every school of mackerel has a large 

 body of predatory fish attendant upon it, such as dogfish, sharks, and 

 other species, which are bound to have so many fish a day. They will 

 eat their one, two, or three fish a day, and if they cannot get them dead 

 they will eat them alive ; therefore, if a large body of young mackerel 

 is thrown out of these purse-seines, besides mackerel which are rejected 

 and worthless, the predatory fish that are attendant upon the mackerel 

 will eat these dead fish, and if they do not find them dead they will 

 take them alive ; so it does not affect the number of fish in the sea. 



By Mr. Thomson : 



Q. Are you positive about that ; do you undertake to say that the 

 predaceous fishes will, in preference to capturing live fish, which they 

 can easily do, be content with dead ones? A. I think that is very 

 likely. 



Q. There, there you say " very likely"? A. I cannot say. I am 

 not a predacious fish ; but 1 would prefer a live fish. 1 am pretty sure, 

 nvever, that these fish are quite ready to be saved the trouble of taking 

 jir prey. It is on precisely the same principle that bait-fish, such as 

 iplin and herring, are placed on hooks and cast overboard to catch the 

 same fish, which follow and eat them in the natural way. I think this 

 may be inferred from that. 





