DESTRUCTION OF IMMATURE FISH 289 



tions as are proposed or have actually been adopted 

 with regard to deep-sea trawling or shrimping ? 

 Obviously, such a question can only be answered 

 in a thoroughly satisfactory manner by trying, 

 and then noting what are the results, as displayed 

 by abundant statistics. But inasmuch as all such 

 legislation involves more or less interference with 

 employment, hardship to poor or unadaptable 

 fishermen, and expense in changing or laying up 

 fishing gear ; and as it creates new offences, re- 

 quires a special police, and generally causes bad 

 feeling and friction between the fishing popula- 

 tion and those whose duty it is to administer 

 the law, it is only reasonable to ask those who 

 propose such steps what grounds they have for 

 the belief that the restrictions suggested would 

 yield benefits at least commensurate with the 

 disturbance and loss caused by their operation. 

 Now, a knowledge of the present state of fishery 

 science forces one to the conclusion that the case 

 for the imposition of such restrictions is purely 

 an a priori one, and though it is probably a good 

 enough case, yet it rests on incomplete scientific 

 results. 



I will put this case as strongly as possible. 

 If we return to our imaginary mussel-bed, we 

 can easily convince ourselves that no restriction 

 on the capture of the small animals on the higher 

 parts of the beach can possibly be of any use. 

 They are inadequately nourished and cannot attain 



19 



