126 



MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE 



17 March 1904.J 



]Mr. G.ARSTANG. 



Wontimied 



Chairman — continued. 



He thought it me<ant trawUng experiments at 

 sea. 



2268. But, as I put it to you just now, is it 

 possible to experiment in the direction of the re- 

 striction of the capture of undersized flat fish ex- 

 cept by legislation ? — It is possible to state the 

 casebeiorehandand to examme the circumstances 

 so minutely that the efficacy of the proposals 

 can be rendered probable or improbable from an 

 examination of the evidence beforehand. 



2269. In fact, although you admit that the 

 number of fish in the sea is falling off, if not 

 in numbers, at any rate in size, you would like 

 to wait until a very long series of experiments 

 has been conducted before taking any active 

 steps ? — No, I should not like to have it put in 

 that form. At the present time it is only one 

 year since our investigations were started, and 

 therefore that renders it difficult for us to express 

 any opinion, but in a year or two more, when 

 not only our own investigations, but the investi- 

 gations of our colleagues round the Xorth Sea 

 are available, then I think we shall be far better 

 able to judge of the efficacy of a general measure 

 for the whole of the North Sea. ^ 



2270. But are you aware that with the 

 comparatively insignificant sum of money which 

 the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries have at 

 tlieir disposal as compared with the amount 

 which has been given for international inquiries, 

 a very large number of fish have been examined 

 and tabulated, and considerable light has been 

 tlirown upon the subject by the statistics 

 obtained? — I think when those statistics are 

 published they will be of great value, and I hope 

 that the system of market measurements under 

 I he Board will be greatly developed, and if funds 

 are not available perhaps this Committee will be 

 able to bring pressure to bear upon the Treasur}^ 

 to grant further sums. 



2271. Do not you think that the results which 

 have been obtained already go to show that this 

 restrictive legislation is necessary and imme- 

 diately neces.sary ? — The statistics, I believe, 

 have not been published, and f do not know 

 anything about them. 



2272. They have been given in evidence before 

 this Committee. 



After a short adjournment. 



Duke of Abercoim. 



2273. I think you said in the beginning of 

 your evidence this morning that you were not 

 afraid of the depletion of fish in the North Sea — 

 that there was no evidence to show that the fish 

 were becoming scarcer in the North Sea, and 

 that it was owing not to the diminution of fish, 

 but to the area being the same and a larger 

 number of vessels coming, and that they caught 

 indi-^dduallj^ a smaller catch than they used 

 formerly to do per vessel ? — I wish to carefully 

 guard myself from appearing to express a belief 

 that there has been no depletion of fish in the 

 North Sea. My opinion is rather that there has 

 been a depletion, that is to say, a reduced abund- 

 ance of fish on the gi-ounds ; but my only point 

 is that hitherto the evidence of that impoverish- 

 ment has been based on the decline in the 



Duke of Abercorn — continued. 



average catches of fishing boats, because the- 

 total statistics of fish landed in this country for 

 example have been hitherto vitiated by a mixture 

 of fish fi-om different grounds; that is to say, 

 the fish landed from the North Sea proper, 

 for example, have been mixed up with the fish 

 landed from, say, Iceland. Consequenth' the 

 general increase in the landings of fish on our 

 coast are not a proof of the maintenance of 

 the abundance of fish in the North Sea itself 

 The only evidence therefore that could be 

 adduced was the evidence of individual fishing- 

 boats, or the average catch per boat, and that 

 has been undermined by the demonstration 

 that the intensity of fishing is now so great that 

 the catch of any individual boat may be affected 

 by the number of boats fishing simultaneously. I 

 merely mean that there is an inadequacy in the- 

 evidence ; the evidence is not conclusive, and 

 we have to go by indirect means. 



2274. Then I imagine that the number of 

 steam trawlers is increasing year by year ? — I 

 do not know whether the increase is being main- 

 tained now at the same rate, but it has steadily 

 increased during the last 10 or 20 years. 



2275. If it is increasing and if the area of 

 the capture of the fish is the same, the con- 

 clusion is that the catches each year by the 

 various trawlers will become less ? — Yes. 



2276. Are you in favour of this Bill ; I gather 

 from your evidence that you would rather have- 

 it deferred for another two years so that a little^ 

 more research in your department might be 

 carried out ? — It seems to me that the Bill is 

 one on which a biologist is placed at a disad- 

 vantage in giving evidence, because it does not 

 specify any definite limits on which his advice 

 may be asked ; it merely asks that absolute 

 power shall be given to the Board of Agri- 

 culture and Fisheries for doing what they think 

 proper within certain wide limits in connection 

 with the matter, and it is a matter therefore on 

 which the representatives of the trade concerned 

 can better express a definite opinion for or against 

 the BiU. My evidence as a biologist is directed 

 rather to the consideration of whether legislation 

 by national size limits, as opposed to inter- 

 national legislation, is effective or not; and'' 

 the second and minor point, whether it is- 

 desirable to adopt a different size limit 

 for, say, the steam ti'awlers from what 

 should be adopted for the smacks. Without 

 wishing to express an opinion as to whether 

 these full powers should be given to the 

 Board or not, I wish to offer evidence that 

 while the imposition of size limits on steam 

 trawlers may have some good effect in stopping 

 the destruction of small fish, it will not have any- 

 thing like the same effect as would an inter- 

 national limit on the same vessels. Secondly, I 

 suggest that the imposition of size limits on 

 smacks would do no good whatever. That is my 

 position. I draw a distinction between steamers 

 and -macks, owing to the fact that the number of 

 f jreign smacks and steam trawlers fishing on 

 the Dutch nurseries is so great that the mere 

 stopping of our English smacks fishing there 

 would do no real good in stopping the total 



destmction- 



