American Fislieries Society 19!) 



know how .suicidal that is. It is absolutely necessaiy to progress 

 to Ijreed from tjie very best animals. 



Further it would give every fisherman an equal chance with 

 everv othei- tisherman. There will l)e no question as to what 

 lobsters shall be thrown overboard, or whether one man is honest 

 and throws his lobsters overboard, to be caught by his neighbor, 

 who is not in the habit of throwing lobsters overboard. . 



But, most important of all, it seems to me, it applies the 

 bioh)gical principle of the protection of the adults to the lobster, 

 to an animal, which, up to the present time, has never been sub- 

 jected to that principle of action. 



A])art from its novelty, from the fact that it practically is a 

 reyersal of the ])resent hiw, certain other ol)jections have been 

 made to it. First, it has been said, that if you catch all the 

 short lobsters, all the small lobsters, how will there hv any large 

 lobsters? Of course that is simply an argument in a circle. 

 (Correspondingly, if you catch all the large lobsters, there will 

 be no small lobsters coming up. So that argument has its value 

 only in the question as to how many of the short lobsters would 

 be taken under these conditions. 



Over against that should be placed the fact, that whereas, 

 under the present law, we allow the catching of lobsters througii- 

 out their entire life, under this suggested law, you are re- 

 stricting the catching of lol)sters to practically one, or at least 

 two molts in the lobster's life, and you know the lobster increase^ 

 upwards of fifteen percent at each molt. That means that a ten 

 inch lobster in a month would pass over into the exempt class, 

 become practically an eleven or eleven and a half inch lobster. 

 So that the time during which those lobsters would be sul)ject tf) 

 eatcli is very much diminished by a law such as is proposed. 



]n addition to tliat, tliere are various opinions, particularly 

 among the fishermen, as to tlie size, some calling for an ciglii 

 inch lowei- limit, and otlu'rs for a twt'lve inch u]i])er limit, and 

 so on. 'r\\i\[ is a (luestioii of jjractical expediency, which could 

 be settled later. Init for tlii' sake (if ari:-vnii"nt. we have settled 

 i;])on this matter of nine to eleven as the Ijest size to be recom- 

 mended. 



That, in general, is an outline of what we have had in mind. 

 I am very glad indeed to talk the matter over further, or answer 



