38 



MABINU AND FISHERIES 



6-7 EDWARD VII., A. 1907 



* The effeect of sawdust in lakes and streams has been discussed by many writers and 

 with conflicting opinions. 



In the second part of the Keport of the United States Commissioner of Fish and 

 Fisheries, 1872-73, Mr. James W. Milner gives the result of his observations on the 

 great lakes. Speaking of Green bay, he says that whitefish were formerly taken in 

 abundance in the spawning season in a number of rivers emptying into this bay; but 

 sawmills are numerous at present on all of these streams, and the great amount of 

 sawdust in the rivers has caused the whitefish to leave them. The effect of the sawdust, 

 he states, is to cover up the spawning grounds and destroy the food of the fish. Wat- 

 son, in the third part of the same report, charges the sawdust with the destruction of 

 the purity and aerated condition of the water, so changing its character as to revolt 

 the cleanly habits of the salmon. He mentions the experience of Mr. Arnold, who had 

 seen the gills of salmon filled with sawdust. Mr. Mather, in Transactions American 

 Fishcultural Association, 1882, and in these columns of the same year, thinks that saw- 

 dust is destructive to the young by covering up the spawning grounds, and by polluting 

 the water with turpentine from the pine and tannin from oak. 



Mr. J". J. Brovm, of Ludington, Mich., in Bulletin V., United States Fish Com- 

 mission, charges the sawdust and shingle shavings dumped into Lake Michigan with? 

 the annihilation of the feeding grounds of fish. The statements of ^ Sportsman ' and 

 Livington Stone in recent numbers of this paper, are very positive as to the deleterious 

 influence of sawdust in polluting the water, killing the young and promoting the 

 growth' of fungus. Mr. Stone believes that after the spawning grounds are covered 

 with sawdust the stream can produce no more trout. 



Charles G. Atkins, in Part II.„ Keport of United States Fish Commission, speaks 

 of the Penobscot river. He finds that sawdust has interfered with the success of cer- 

 tain fishing stations, but the salmon are not prevented from ascending to their spawn- 

 ing beds, which are free from obstruction and seem to suffer no injury from the refuse. 



Professor H. Rasch, an eminent authority in Norway, communicated his views on 

 the sawdust question to the Norwegian Hunting and Fishing Association in 1873. He 

 admits that rivers on which there is considerable cutting of timber gradually become 

 more and more destitute of salmon, but thinks that the injury is not to the fish directly, 

 but is caused by limiting and partially destroying the spawning grounds. He cites the 

 River Drammen, which was greatly polluted by sawdust for many years, and in which 

 the salmon decreased constantly, until the fishermen at Hellef os begun hatching them 

 artificially and planting the fry annually. Having access to the upper part of the 

 river, which was comparatively free from sawdust, the ascending fish seemed to be little 

 affected by the mill refuse from below Hellefos. His opinion, based upon experience 

 on the Drammen river and the Soli, was that unless the salmon are prevented by im- 

 passible dams from ascending above the mill locations, the sawdust will not drive them 

 from the streams nor materially injure them. Piscator, Charles Hallock, and Milton 

 D. Peirce have produced statistics and observations to prove that sawdust in streams 

 of Nova Scotia and Massachusetts has not injured the fishing for trout, and has not 

 unfavourably affected any of the river fisheries. 



From the foregoing survey it will be evident that there are two sides to the ques- 

 tion as to the influence of sawdust in streams and lakes, and it may be possible that 

 some of the states which have legislated against the deposit of this substance in certain 

 waters have placed unnecessary restrictions upon an important industry. Unless 

 spawning grounds are actually covered and feeding grounds destroyed, there would 

 seem to be no case against the sawdust. At all events, the instigators of this legisla- 

 tion should produce evidence of deleterious effects to be remedied by legal enactments, 

 and show that such pollution is necessarily .and always fatal, and cannot be mitigated 

 by measures to aid the ascent to the spawning beds.' 



Since 1889 the references to sawdust are 'few and far between,' and when its 

 poisonous effects are asserted, the responsibility for the statements is placed upon 

 fishermen or fish dealers. Even the international commissioners of 1893 made no 



