SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE SEA FISHERIES BILL. 



115 



17 March 1904.] 



M^ Dawson. 



[Continued. 



Chairman — continued. 



sale of every undersized fish round our coasts ? — 

 No. _ I think it is with regard to flat fish, 

 certainly with regard to plaice. 



2138. You think it is desirable to protect 

 every undersized flat fish round our coasts ?— Yes. 



2139. You do not think that it would be 

 sufiicient to protect the nurseries where those 

 young flat fish are hatched and pass the earlier 

 part of their lives ? — That would go a long way 

 towards it, but as I mentioned before, the fish 

 do not always stop in one place, they move about. 



2140. Supposing from a practical point of view 

 it were possible to secure from Parliament 

 legislation which would protect a great number 

 of undersized flat fish in the sea; would you 

 prefer to have such legislation or to wait until you 

 could get every undersized flat fish protected ? — 

 My opinion is that it would be better to have all 

 undersized flat fish protected, but if this cannot 



Chairman — continued. 



be done at once then I say it would be better to 

 have the first, that is, to have a great number 

 protected. 



2141. You would like to begin experimentally ? 

 • — Yes, in that case. 



2142. Now, with regard to trawlers. Would it 

 be as easy for the deep sea steam trawlers to 

 land their undersized fish as it is for the small 

 sailing trawlers, if the landing was prohibited ? — 

 I can hardly say that. I should not say it would 

 be any more difficult. 



2143. Do you know anything of the evidence 

 which was given as to the proportion of fish 

 landed at the principal ports ? — No. 



2144. You are not aware whether 97 per cent. 

 of it was landed at thirty-five of the principal 

 ports and only 3 per cent at the other 112 

 ports ? — No. 



The witness is directed to withdraw. 



Mr. WALTER GARSTANG is called in : and Examined as follows : 



Chairman. 



2145. You are connected with the Marine 

 Biological Association, are you not ? — Yes, I 

 am the Naturalist in charge of the Fishery 

 Investigations of the Association. 



2146. And your headquarters are at Lowestoft 

 and Plymouth ? — Our headquarters for fishery 

 work nave been transferred from Plymouth to 

 Lowestoft since the International investigations 

 began. 



2147. You have seen the Bill under the 

 consideration of their Lordships ? — Yes. 



2148. And you observe that it is an enabling 

 Bill, and that it would be necessary, to carry it 

 into effect, for the Board of Agriculture and 

 Fisheries to make certain orders. 



2149. Those orders would relate to various 

 matters, one of which of course would be the 

 size of the fish prohibited and the ports at which 

 they should be prohibited. Have you any 

 observation to make to the Committee upon the 

 size ? — I understood that it would be premature 

 to offer evidence as to what size limits should be 

 proposed at the present stage. The matter was 

 postponed by Parhament in 1900 for further 

 inquiry, and the reports of the international 

 investigations on those inquiries have not yet, in 

 the first place, appeared. I am therefore not 

 prepared to offer evidence at the present stage 

 as to what size limits are desirable. The 

 evidence that I am rather prepared to give at 

 the present time is as to the efficacy of national 

 legislation on the one hand andas to the prospects 

 of international regulation on the other. 



2150. But when you talk of national legisla- 

 tion, I suppose you mean the Bill under con- 

 sideration. ? — Yes, the Bill under consideration. 



2151. Which is, is it not, an enabling Bill ? — 

 Yes. 



2152. Therefore is it possible for you to give 

 any expression of opinion upon the Bill unless 

 you are prepared to give an expression of opinion 

 as to what should be the orders of the Board 

 under the Bill ? — Yes ; I think there are certain 

 aspects which can be dealt with at the present 

 stage without committing ourselves too definitely 

 as to what size limits should be adopted in 



(0.10.) 



Chairman — continued, 

 future. The question of protecting flat fish 

 arises from the general impression that the sea is 

 being impoverished, that the abundance offish in 

 the sea is less than was formerly the case ; and this 

 is based on the experience of fishermen, that 

 their catches from year to year are going down 

 in abundance. Some few years ago I tried to put 

 together the statistical evidence on this point, 

 and I submitted it to the Committee of 1900. 

 In that paper I showed for a large number 

 of different fisheries, that the complaint of the 

 fishermen was correct, that the average catches 

 per boat had been declining for a continuous 

 term of years. But it has been pointed out by 

 various critics, that to conclude from that 

 evidence that the abundance of fish in the sea is 

 less now than was formerly the case is a logical 

 fallacy ; that there is another possible explana- 

 tion, — in other words, that the number of boats 

 fishing in the sea has attained such a degree of 

 development that the total quantity of fish 

 caught by these boats bears now a large instead 

 of a small proportion to the total abundance of 

 fish in the sea, and that, consequently, the 

 available stock of fish in the sea has to be 

 divided amongst the increased number of boats, 

 thus bringing about a decrease in the average 

 catch. It is a little difficult to go into the point, 

 but the fact is simply that it has been pointed 

 out, and I have accepted the criticism, that it is 

 impossible merely from the evidence of the decline 

 in the average catch of the fishermen with an in- 

 creasing number of boats, to conclude that there 

 has been an impoverishment of the grounds. 



2153. Do you mean to convey to the Com- 

 mittee that you believe there are as many fish 

 in the old area that used to be fished by vessels 

 leaving England now as there were twenty years 

 ago ? — No ; my point is that there is no> 

 proof now, no proof has been accepted as satis- 

 factory, that there has been a decline in the stock 

 of fish ; no statistical proof at present to show 

 that the abundance of fish in the sea now is less 

 than was formerly the case. The arguments 

 which have been previously adduced have been, 

 ubjected to destructive criticism. 

 p2 2154. Have 



