1912 AND FISHERIES COMMISSION. 19 



<TOvernment for even the modest efforts that are being made in this 

 direction. 



In dealing with this question, moreover, it must be remembered 

 that, although almost throughout the Canadian waters of the great 

 lakes there has existed a legal close season, this close season has been, 

 unfortunately, far from rigoroush^ enforced, owing in certain localities 

 to the deliberate laxity or inefficiency of the officials whose duty it was 

 to do so, and in others, such as the north shore of Lake Superior, to the 

 lamentable lack of even the most obviously indispensable equipment 

 to ("uable the officials to carry out the duties they were appointed and 

 paid l:o perform. 



Also, it is well known to those versed in fishery lore that the dates 

 of the close season, as at present existing, do not in most cases tally 

 with the actual period of breeding operations, for, firstly, the dates are 

 fixed for the fisheries as a whole, whereas the difference in latitude 

 will account for a normal variation of at least three weeks, and 

 secondly, climatic conditions will every year exercise a considerable 

 influence in hastening or retarding the general movement of the fish 

 to the spawning beds. 



In support of at least the first of these contentions may be quoted 

 the conclusions arrived at by the Georgian Bay Fisheries Commission, 

 who reported that after an examination of practically all the fishermen 

 in the district, and those interested in, or having knowledge of, the 

 fisheries they were forced to the conclusion that the whitefish spawned 

 on an average fifteen days earlier in the northern and western waters 

 of that area, tlian they did in the more southern and easterly, and con- 

 sequently recommended that the close season for whitefish in the 

 Georgian Bay region, north and west sections, should be from October 

 1 to January 1 following, and for the southern and eastern sections 

 from October 15 to January 1 following. When such divergence as this 

 in the dates of spawning of one particular variety of fish exists in 

 waters so comparatively adjacent, it is easy to realize how much more 

 must it be the case when the latitude and normal temperature of the 

 waters are widely different. 



It has been lield by some authorities (amongst others the Georgian 

 Bay Fisheries Commission, which, of course, included so great an expert 

 as Professor Prince, the Dominion Commissioner of Fisheries), that 

 on account of its voracious (qualities, and general hardihood, the great 

 lake trout does not require so much protection as does the more defence- 

 less wliitefish, and consequently that, even if the trout do congregate 

 on the spawning beds considerably earlier tlian provided for by the close 

 season afforded them for protection during this period, no great harm 

 will be done by netting them at such times. This, however, would seem 

 hardly to be a logical deduction, for whatever may be the relative 

 defensive powers of fish in regard to each other, all are equally defence- 

 less against the operations of the commercial net fisherman when they 



