208 REPORT OF COMMISSIONER OF FISH AND FISHERIES. 



I shall attempt to account for tbe appearance of scup above Stone 

 Bridge, and their gradual disappearance in another way. 



I think there can be no doubt that formerly scup came up to Stone 

 Bridge, by the way of Seaconnet Point, for the purpose of spawning, 

 and did spawn there. 



After the traps were set at Seaconnet Point, vast quantities were 

 taken there, and many of the schools were broken up ; and perhaps, if 

 the idea prevalent among the trappers themselves is true, that each 

 school had an old and experienced guide, they lost their leader, became 

 thus disorganized, bewildered, and obstructed, and having lost their 

 course spawned in that vicinity; while others, escaping the traps, 

 reached their true spawning- ground, where they were taken, or dei)osited 

 their spawn. But the reproduction there was not sufficient to fill up 

 the deficiency at Stone Bridge caused by the purse-seining, so that the 

 numbers gradually year after year diminished, until seining was aban- 

 doned in that vicinity. Only those would return who were born there, 

 while the fish spawned at Seaconnet Point would deposit their spawn 

 in that vicinity. 



The statement of Mr. Lorenzo Tallman was that the fish at Stone 

 .Bridge remain there about a week -, this would be about the time neces- 

 sary after their appearance to complete the operation of spawning, 

 and then, instead of going down the west passage, they disperse to their 

 feeding-grounds. This to me appears the only reasonable way of ac- 

 counting for their disappearance. 



Allowing them a week there, and a week to reach Seaconnet Point, 

 the season for this run, which does not, as is stated, continue much more 

 than a week, must have taken, if this be true, a much longer time. 



By comparing this assertion with the other facts admitted by the 

 trappers, I am satisfied not only that the theory is unsound, and not sup- 

 ported by these facts, but that, on the other hand, it is completely con- 

 troverted. 



Why is it necessary, except for the purpose of sustaining a theory, 

 under which alone can the continuance of the traps be justified, to 

 assume that scup avoid during the summer the coast and our beautiful 

 bay and river, when they are found in abundance on each side of us I 



Mr. Scott, in his book. Fishing in American Waters, already quoted 

 from, says of this fish, (page 109 :) 



" It is a greedy little shining sinner, which is both herbivorous and 

 carnivorous, foraging on both fish and vegetable diets, and shoaling with 

 the omnium gatherum of bottom fish, which make their summer habitation 

 among the weedy banks called by their name all along the coast from 

 Maine (!) to Georgia, from three to six miles from shore, purveying 

 everywhere from their homes into all the estuaries and tidal back-sets 

 for provender. The porgee is one of the most numerous of coast fishes,- 

 and as greedy as it is plenty. Dr. Brown, in his Anglers' Guide, states 

 that the steamboat which runs daily to the porgee banks near Sandy 

 Hook, in the summer, returns with many thousand porgees, beside the 

 sea-bass and tautog averaging from six to ten thousand as their daily 

 catch with the hand line." 



The trai)pers alleged that they were to be found in Buzzard's Bay and 

 Vineyard Sound, &c. But I think Mr. Scott is in error when he says 

 they are found on the coasts of Maine; 1 am inclined to believe they are 

 not found on thi}, other side of Cape Malabar. 



Mr. Daniel Chun^h says they are found the whole season off Charles- 

 ton or Savannah ; and the hook-and-line iishing in Hudson Biver and 

 vicinity has at some seasons greatly interfered with him in the market. 



