REPORT OF THE CLOSE-TIME COMMITTEE. 323 
missioners’ estimate, would consume 600,000,000 herrings, instead of the 
1,110,000,000 alleged by the Report, and, therefore, nearly two hundred 
millions fewer than the Commissioners’ estimate of the annual take of the 
Scottish fisheries (800 millions)—twenty-five per cent. less instead of thirty- 
seven per cent. more. 
“ Hitherto the supposition of the Report, that the Gannets frequent the 
Scottish seas ali the year round, has been followed; but the Close-Time 
Committee begs leave to observe that, as a matter of fact, these birds are 
not there in force for more than half the year. 
“This, then, will require another abatement to be made. Not to 
exaggerate the case, the Committee assumes them to frequent these waters 
seven months or seven-twelfths of a year. This will make their annual 
capture of herrings 350,350,000, instead of the more than 1,110,000,000 
of the Commissioners, being 700,000,000, or much less than one-third, 
fewer. 
“TV. That in all the evidence received and published by the Com- 
missioners only two witnesses allege that any harm has resulted to the 
fisheries from the Sea-Birds Protection Act. Of these the first, Robert 
M‘Connell, presented a petition from the fishermen of Girvan, in which it 
is stated (p. 145) that ‘no legislation is called for or required ;’ while another 
witness from the same place, John Melville (a fishery officer), declares (at 
p- 146) that ‘The fishery has very much increased this last year. Recent 
years have also shown a gradual increase. The increase is partly due to the 
~ increased machinery, and partly to the increase in the number of herrings.’ 
“The second witness unfavourable to the Act, John M‘William (an 
Inspector of Poor), speaks (pp. 147-49) only from a personal knowledge 
acquired between 1835 and 1853, when he ceased to be a fisherman, and 
not from any recent experience. He can therefere scarcely be held com- 
petent to give an opinion of his own as to whether the Sea-Birds Protection 
Act (passed in 1869) has injured the fisheries. Another witness recommends 
the repeal of this Act; but he, Hugh MacLachlan, expressly states (p. 143) 
that he ‘ thinks the cause of the decrease [in the numbers of herrings taken] 
is the catching immature fish ;’ and the remedy he proposes is the adoption 
of a strict close time. 
*“V. That, on the other hand, the utility of sea-birds in pointing out the 
situation of shoals of herrings and other fish is not only generally notorious, 
but is even admitted in the Report (pp. 57 and 175). 
“VI. That if the Sea-Birds Act be repealed on the grounds alleged for 
Scotland, its repeal for England and Ireland must logically follow; and this 
Committee trusts that no step may be taken to repeal the Act for Scotland. 
“T am, Sir, yours obediently, 
“H. EK. Dresser, 
Sec. to the Brit. Assoc. Close-Time Committee.” 
