132 ST ANDREWS BAY. SUMMARY. 



trawl of the same kind as that formerly used by the native 

 fishermen the result might have been different. Few would be 

 prepared to state that because, even with a blank year, the 

 thornbacks were more numerous in the first period (by 107 to 

 97) they had been affected by any method of fishing, just as 

 they would hesitate to put weight on the fact that the small 

 numbers of brill were increased fourfold and the larger 

 numbers of starry rays doubled by accumulation in the latter 

 period (vide Tables V. — YII.). The uncertainties and irregu- 

 larities connected with fishing operations are as distinctly seen 

 in the fishes that are less common in the bay, such as the sole, 

 sandy ray, conger, poor cod and wolf-fish, as in the more 

 abundant forms, some occurring in greater numbers in the first 

 period and others in the second. The greatest caution is 

 therefore necessary in drawing conclusions from such data. If 

 they show anything more than another it is that the closure of 

 such areas has no appreciable influence on the increase or 

 diminution of the fishes within their own boundaries or in the 

 neighbouring waters. The problem is too vast to be solved 

 by such pigmy measures. The closure — to the three-mile 

 limit — round the shores of Britain seems to the uninitiated a 

 great step for the protection of the sea-fishes against trawling, 

 but it is really quite insignificant, in view of the vast extent 

 and unbounded resources of the ocean, or in its effects on the 

 complex chain of circumstances resulting in the permanent 

 abundance of these fishes. 



