EEGULATION OP THE SEA-FISHERIES BY LAW. 117 



FISHERIES ON THE COAST OF MASSACHUSETTS. 



REMARKS OF MR. ATWOOD, OF THE CAPE DISTRICT, IN RELATION TO 

 THE PETITION TO PROHIBIT NET AND SEINE FISHERIES. 



Senate Chamber, April 19, 1870. 



The report (leave to withdraw) on the petition of T. D. Eliot and 

 others, came up for acceptance by special assignment. 



Mr. Hawes, of Bristol, arose and said that, as a large number of the 

 petitions ashing for a prohibitory fishery act came from his district, he 

 was not ready to vote until he could have some further explanation. 



Mr. At wood, of the Cape district, chairman of the committee on the 

 fisheries, arose and spoke at length, substantially as follows : 



Mr. President : As so many petitions have been presented to this 

 legislature and referred to your committee on the fisheries, asking for 

 an act to prohibit certain modes of fishing now in use in the waters ot 

 this commonwealth, I feel it to be a duty incumbent upon me, as a rep- 

 resentative of a district extensively engaged in this branch of industry, 

 to occupy some time in giving somewhat in detail the reasons why your 

 committee have unanimously reported leave to withdraw. 



Early in this session, on the 12th of January, there was presented and 

 referred to the committee on the fisheries, the petition of Charles W. 

 Lovett, jr., and sixty-four others, claiming to be citizens and tax-payers 

 of this commonwealth, asking for an act to prevent the taking of certain 

 salt-water fish in weirs and pounds, and also that the taking offish known 

 as Spanish mackerel, and striped or sea-bass, in any seine or net, maybe 

 prohibited ; but that the same may be taken between the first day of 

 June and the first day of December, by hook and line only. On the fol- 

 lowing day the petition on T. D. Eliot and 1,225 others was presented 

 and referred, and subsequently a large number of petitions in aid of the 

 same, claiming that the practice of pound-fishing, trap-fishing, drag-sein- 

 ing, purse-seining, and gill-netting, is seriously and fatally prejudicial to 

 the production and increase of fish. They pray that the legislature will, 

 by suitable enactments, protect said fish and those of the community 

 interested in their continuance and production, from these novel and 

 improper modes of fishing. Also there has been presented and referred 

 a large number of remonstrances against the passage of any general pro- 

 hibitory act. For their number I refer senators to the printed report of 

 the committee. 



Though the two first petitions were not in aid of each other, still they 

 were aiming to accomplish the same object, and they seemed to be in- 

 separably connected; so much so that your committee deemed it expe- 

 dient to hear the parties who would represent both at the same time. 

 Accordingly all' the parties were notified, and the hearing was com- 

 menced on the 15th of February. No less than 18 sessions of the com- 

 mittee were given to these hearings, during which time many witnesses 

 testified, and very little was learned from the evidence that proved to 

 the committee that fish were being exhausted. All agreed that the scup, 

 tautog, sea-bass, and striped bass had within a few years diminished in 

 Buzzard's Bay ; but failed to show that over-fishing was the cause of 

 the diminution. Like the many fishermen that I know, the witnesses 

 were not well acquainted with the habits of fish. They study them no 

 further than they contribute to their pecuniary interest. At most they 

 possess only a local knowledge of the fish with which they come in con- 

 tact. They prosecute the fisheries for their support, and do not make 



