6-7 EDWARD VII. 



SESSIONAL PAPER No. 22a 



A. 1907 



IV. 



A FUETHER REPORT UPON THE EFFECTS OF SAWDUST ON FISH 



LIFE. 



By Professor A. P. Knight, M.A., M.D., &c.. Queen's University, Kingston. 



The following investigation was begun in the year 1900, at the suggestion of Pro- 

 fessor Prince, the fish commissioner for the Dominion of Canada. In the previous 

 year Professor Prince had summarized in a most admirable way the effects of different 

 kinds of pollutions upon fish ; and, in order to do this, had consulted a great mass of 

 scientific literature emanating from investigators in both Europe and America. One 

 of the things which struck him as most remarkable was ^ the painful lack of scientific 

 demonstrated knowledge as regards the effects of sawdust upon fish life.' The onerous 

 and exacting duties of his office precluded him from undertaking any lengthened series 

 of scientific experiments himself. But from the very start of research work at the 

 Dominion Biological Station he impressed upon the workers the importance, of certain 

 fisheries problems which he desired to have solved. Among these was the sawdust ques- 

 tion. 



Up to 1899, when Professor Prince wrote the report alluded to above, he had ample 

 opportunities, during the course of his official visits to different parts of Canada, of 

 making observations upon sawdust-polluted streams, and as a result of these observa- 

 tions he reached the conclusion that, ' so far as our jfresent knowledge goes, sawdust 

 pollution, if it does not affect the upper waters, the shallow spawning grounds, appears 

 to do little harm to the adult fish in their passage up from the sea. . . . There is no 

 case on record of salmon, or shad, or any other healthy adult fish being found choked 

 with sawdust, or in any way fatally injured by the floating particles.' 



The Dominion law was, however, against Prof essor Prince's views on the matter, 

 and in 1901, the Ontario Fisheries Department proceeded to enforce the Dominion Act. 

 Three mill-owners were fined for passing sawdust and shavings into streams containing 

 protected fish, and many others were warned. 



The Deputy Fish Commissioner for Ontario, Mr. S. T. Bastedo, held views the 

 very opposite of these expressed by Professor Prince. In his annual report for 1899, 

 Mr. Bastedo says : ' There can be nothing more destructive of fish life than the deposit- 

 ing of sawdust in the rivers and lakes.' 



When two experts hold views so diametrically opposed as those of Professor Prince 

 and Mr. Bastedo, the average member of parliament may well be excused from holding 

 any views at all upon the subject ; and yet he is forced to take some stand on the sub- 

 ject of prohibitive legislation ? There has been a law against throwing mill refuse into 

 the rivers of Canada ever since 1860. Certain streams were exempted from the opera- 

 tion of that law right down to 1899. The practical question, therefore, now facing the 

 fish commissioners in the various provinces is this : ' Shall the law be enforced ? ' 



Evidently the whole subject should be reported upon by disinterested investiga- 

 tors, and the law should be neither repealed nor enforced until their judgment is re- 

 ceived. 



The literature of the subject helps us very little. -Previously to 1888 there were 

 ffequent references to it in the annual reports and bulletins of the United States Fish 

 Commission; but the experts were by no means unanimous in their judgments, as is 

 evident from the following editorial published in Forest and Stream in 1899- — ■ 



37 



22a— 5 



