Jan. 6, 1894.] 



FOREST AND STREAM. 



11 



large catches were taken on the Long Island coast, as many as 20,000 

 per day coining to Fulton Market. That quantity has been steadily 

 diminishing year by year, and this vear the scarcity is more marked 

 than ever before. 



The evidence of Thomas J. Horner, a fisherman of Atlan- 

 tic City, N. J. (Report 706, p. 170), bears internal evidence of 

 truthfulness: 



Q. Has the supply of the fish used by the people for food increased 

 or diminished during your experience? A. They have decreased, They 

 have also increased in these last four years. Previous to that they di- 

 minished. When I first followed fishing if we did not catch a hundred 

 fish a day and come along the street with less than that the old fisher- 

 man's song was sung to us. I think it is seven or eight; years ago that 

 father and I built the first fish factory that was ever built on the coast 

 of New Jersey. 



Q. You mean a menhaden factory? A, A menhaden factory. It 

 was built for a man that belonged in Connecticut. We were the con- 

 tractors to build the house. The first load of fish that came to that 

 factory was a load of menhaden; the second load was a load of weak- 

 fish, food fish, a full load. The next load that came to that factory 

 was a load of drumfish. They were thrown into the waste heap as 

 the weakfish were. 1 said to my father then, "Father, we have done 

 something we ought not to have done. We have done something that 

 we thought was going to benefit the community whiub will uever 

 benefit it." 4 : Why," he said, "boy, how you talk." "Well," I said, "it 

 is so. In less than three years irom now in our little village where 

 p we used to get fish given to us for nothing, we will pay ten cents a 

 pound for them." In less than three years we could not catch a fish 

 unless we pulled it out from under a 80d where he had hidden himself. 

 Then myself and others tried to get a law through the Legislature of 

 New Jersey, which we did. and to day, since that law has been passed, 

 you can catch all the fish in our channel you want. We ask uo better 

 fishing than we have got in Atlantic City now, from the fii'6t day of 

 June until the first day of September, and the very T instant they cast 

 those nets in these waters then our fish are gone again, and we can- 

 not catch them unless we go outside. 



To the same effect is the evidence of George Hildreth, of 

 New Jersey. (Report No. 706, p. 150): 



Q. You spoke of catching great quantities of different kinds of fish 

 when you were fishing for menhaden. What proportion of food fish 

 would you catch iu drawing your seine for menhaden? A. Sometimes 

 we caught a good many food fish, and another time we caught a very 

 few. 



Q. Well, on the average would there be a considerable quantity of 

 food fish? A. There sometimes would be quite a number ot food fish 

 among them, and other times would be very little; whatever there 

 was within the bounds of the net. 



Q. There is nothing in your experience to justify the theory of 

 some of these witnesses, that the menhaden were always found by 

 themselves exclusively; that they were not largely intermixed with 

 the food fish? A. On that I can only tell you my experience. 1 

 seldom ever made a haul but what 1 always caught a cenain quantity 

 of food fish. I seldom made a haul but what I caught more or less 

 drum. 



Q. Did you fish in shallow water? A. I calculated to fish in ten 

 fatnoms if I wanted to make a haul. 



Q. Did your net reach the bottom? A. Yes, sir; the net was sixteen 

 fathoms deep. 



In a statement of Prof. G. Brown Goode, before the Inter- 

 national Fisheries Exhibition, London, England (quoted in 

 79 Con. Bee, p. 47SS), he says: 



There can be no doubt that the extensive fisheries prosecuted by 

 menhaden steamers iu the Gulf of Maine were prejudicial to the shore 

 fishermen by driving bfie fish they formerly caught for bait out to sea 

 and beyond the reach of their nets. 



The reason is also furnished by the same gentleman (Misc. 

 Docs. 49, 2d Sess. 45th Cong., p. 117): 



The purse seine is doubtless more effective than any other fishing 

 apparatus ever devised. By its use a school of almost any size can be 

 secured without, the loss of a single fish. The enormous demands of 

 . the oil factories can be met only oy fisheries conducted on the grand- 

 est scale, and the purse seine is used by the factory fleets to the exclu- 

 sion of all other nets. 



Mr. S, L. Boardman, of Augusta, Me., in an interesting 

 report to the State Board of Agriculture, of which he was 

 secretary, (1875, p. 60). states the facts as follows: 



Parties engaged in taking menhaden now go off 10 or 20 miles from 

 shore, whereas they formerly fished near the coast, and now they find 

 the best and "most profitable fishing at that distance." This fish is in- 

 cluded among ihe shore fishes described by Prof. S. F. Baird as having 

 suffered "an alarming decrease" along the in-shores of the United 

 States, owing partly to excessive fishing throughout their spawning 

 time m order to supply the oil factories. 



Prof. G. Brown Goode, in his "Short Biography," says: 



. In estimating the importance of the menhaden to the United States 

 it should be borne in mind that its absence from our waters would 

 probably reduce all our other sea fishes to at least one-fourth their 

 present extent. 



For various evidence to the same effect, see Misc. Docs. 49 

 2d Sess. Cong., p. 75. In the same document, Prof G Brown 

 Goode states this fact at p. 144: 



Constant fishing on the Northern coast has driven the menhaden 

 out to sea, though in the South their habits are much the same as 

 of old. In New England the menhaden fishery has become to a cer- 

 tain extent sea fishing and is prosecuted on the grandest scale. 



In Misc. Docs. 4S, 2d Sess. 45th Cong., p. Ill it is said by 

 Prof. Goode: 



It is the commonly received opinion that purse-net fishing is des- 

 tined evidently to destroy all the menhaden in our waters * * * 

 The same may be said regarding pound-net fishing. It is doubtless 

 true that the Usher les in a given locality may 'deplete litie Immediate 

 region in which they are prosecuted. Toe cod and halibut may be 

 fished for upon a single bank until the local supply is exhausted. 



From the report of the United States on menhaden fish- 

 eries I find the following as to the habits of the menhaden: 



They prefer the shallow places along shore and some years crowd 

 in great numbers into the brackish sounds and inlets, and ascend 

 some of the larger rivers for a long distance, until the water becomes 

 too brackish for them. 



Prof. Goode says (Misc. Doc. 49, 2d Sess. 45th Cong., p. 70): 



They seem particularly fond of shallow waters protected from the 

 •wind, in whicn, if not molested, they will remain throughout the sea- 

 son, drifting with the tide in and out of the shallow indentations of 

 the shore and into the mouths of creeks and rivers, on the surface of 

 ithe water; but the gill nets will take them long after, and they have 

 been so taken as late as New Year's, when they are quite plenty This 

 shows that they are not gone at that time. Who knows but what thev 

 are close by all winter? J 

 "As to their habits, "I would say that while they were generally cred- 

 ited with being an off shore spawner, U. S. Commissioner McDonald 

 informs us that he bad their habits investigated along our coast dur- 

 ing the season of 1892, and from evidence so procured, he has no doubt 

 of their being an inshore spawner, and that they seek the shallow 

 brackish water along our shores, bays and estuaries for the purpose of 

 spawning." 



This fact of itself, without taking in consideration the 

 destructiou and waste of edible fish, warrants the prohibition 

 of the use of the purse net for the purpose of taking this fish 

 along our shores, at least during the spawning season. 



I desire to call your attention for one moment to the words 

 of Prof. Baird. iu relation to the spawning habits of fish and 

 its importance to future supply. In his Report of 1871 he calls 

 attention to extermination or decrease of fish by ticking 

 thereby reducing their reproduction, as follows: 



As most fish require from three to five years' growth before they 

 are capable of reproduction, and iu many cases remain in the open sea 

 until this period is reached, it will follow mat for several years after 

 the establishment of an exhaustive fishing the supplv may appear to be 

 but little interfered with, since there are several successive crops of 

 fish to come on at the annual intervals, and not until the entire round 

 has been compleied do the injurious agencies begin to present the evi- 

 dence of their severity. It is easy, then, to understand why, after 

 five or ten years' fishing, the supply of fisti in a given bay or along a 

 certain strip of coast will be reduced to a very considerable degree. 



Prof. Baird, in his report of 1871 (Misc. Doc. No. 61, 2d 

 Sess. 42d Congress, page 2S), says: 



It is not a sufficient argument in reply to this (the danger of fish ex- 

 termination) to point to the enormous number of eggs laid by a single 

 fish in each season, amounting in some instances to perhaps from 

 five thousand to hundreds of thousands or even millions, since the 

 immense fecundity is an absolute necessity to preserve the balance of 

 life under water. The eggs and the young fish furnish the appointed 

 jood to an immense variety of animals, many species of fish as weil 

 as crustaceans and other animals depending" entirely upon them for 

 support, Among the particular enemies of the egg's and the young 

 fry may be enumerated the small minnows, cyprinodonts. the athe- 

 rinas, silver sides or friars, the cunners or chogset, the young of 

 many larger fish, the different kinds of crustaceans, including also 

 the lobster, etc. These were not interfered with to any material 

 extent by any form of net, as they are too small to furnish profitable 

 employment in their capture, and they pass readily through the 

 meshes of any nets that would be set for other purposes. Although, 

 therefore the amount of spawn and of young fish may be materially 

 less than a previous average, the predacious animals just referred to 

 will probably still destroy as many as ever, since they have every op- 

 portunity for picking up their prey at all times; and whatever the 

 scarcity at first, they are likely to get all they require. 



Prof. Baird, in his Report of 1871, at p. 18, also says: 



In all discussions and considerations in regard to the sea fisheries, 

 one important principle should be borne in mind, and that is that 

 every fish that spawns on or near the shores has a definite relation- 

 ship to a particular area of sea bottom; or, in other words, that as 

 far as we can judge from experiment and observation, every fish 

 returns as nearly as possible to its own birthplace to exercise the 

 function of reproduction, and continues to do so, year by year, dur- 

 ing the whole period of its existence. * * * It is an established 

 fact that salmon, alewives and shad, both young and old, have been 

 caught on certaiu spawning beds, andafter beingproperly marked and 

 allowed to escape, have been found to reappear in successive years 

 in the same locality. * * * The principle is rather more difficult 

 to establish in regard to marine fishes, but experiments have been 

 made by competent men on our coast and elsewhere, which prove 

 the existence of the same general principle in relation to them. 



There were in use, during the year 1880, 82 steamers and 366 

 sailing vessels employed in taking menhaden. Now, let the 

 82 steamers average three hauls per day and the sailing ves- 

 sels average but two hauls per day during the season of say 

 160 fishing days with a purse net of average length of 1,200ft. 

 This would be 978 hauls per day, each haul covering an area 

 of 2% acres would be 2,639 acres per day— 430,240 acres of our 

 waters along our coast strained every year of all the fish that 

 happen at the time to be in it. 



Gentlemen, can this be done yearly without decreasing the 

 food fish along our coast? My figures are low estimates. 



A small portion of the hauls may be made in waters deeper 

 than the net used, in which case there is possibility of the 

 edible fish escaping. Now, what is the effect of the constant 

 use of this net upon those edible fish fortunate enough to 

 have escaped it, when hauled in the shallow waters along our 

 shores, in our bays and estuaries— the feeding and spawning 

 ground of many varieties of our most valuable fish— but to 

 drive them to deep water away beyond the reach of those 

 who for a livelihood fish with hookand line, those who angle 

 to obtain the fish food for their families, as well as those who 

 augle for recreation, health and for pleasure? 



It has been my privilege to listen to the same arguments 

 used by those interested in a pecuniary way in taking fish 

 with nets for market, as well as for oil and guano, also tho?e 

 who have a pecuniary interest in handling them after they 

 are taken, as we are likely to hear at this conference; and 

 right here, gentlemen, allow me to suggest that if I or you 

 were so pecuniarily interested it is possible that we, too, 

 would want no restriction whatsoever, regardless of waste 

 and destruction of valuable food fishes, to in any way inter- 

 fere with our making the last dollar possible, and that right 

 now, regardless of the supply for the future. There are those 

 so interested who claim that this important question is only 

 a conflict or controversy between the rod and reel angler on 

 one side, and, as they term it, the commercial fishermen on 

 the other side. Thereby, while masquerading as men of com- 

 merce, they ignore altogether the existence of a large and 

 worthy class of citizens, from Maine to North Carolina, 

 whose individual capital invested, it is true, is but small and 

 very often consists of all they have of this world's goods, but 

 who in numbers as well as iu aggregation of capital exceed 

 by far that of either the menhaden or the pound net fisher- 

 men, or botli. I refer to men, who in a small way, generally 

 with hook and line, mostly supply local demands with their 

 moderate catches, as well as procure bait, care for and hire 

 boats to the anglers. Many of this worthy class of hard- 

 working citizens are no longer able, by the growing scarcity 

 of edible fish in the shoal waters along our shores, to make a 

 living, and are thereby compelled to seek other vocations. 



There is another class, and they are poor people, but 

 numerous, who, when not employed, angle for tbe purpose 

 of securing food for their families, and there are those 

 termed anglers, who, for the love of the sport, as well as for 

 recreation and health, prefer to catch their fish from the 

 garter rather than at tbe markets, with a zealous eye to the 

 supply of edible fishes for the future as well as the present 

 they make honorable efforts to protect the fishes from de- 

 struction, wanton waste and thereby depletion. 



Instances are well known where very large catches of 

 edible fish have been made by menhaden fishermen where 

 the quantity taken at a single haul was so large as to induce 

 the fishermen to take them to market, the incentive being 

 that they eould realize more money for so large a quantity 

 by selling to the market than by manufacturing them into 

 fertilizer. 



Having lived near the water at the west end of Lone 

 Island Sound for nearly sixty years and resorting to the 

 water very frequently each year, I have had opportunities 

 for a full observation of the use of the purse net, and I can 

 say that I have seen biuefish, sea bass, butterfish, porgies, 

 lobsters and oysters in the nets of the menhaden fishermen 

 when hauling for menhaden, and could produce citizens of 

 my locality in numbers who have seen various species of 

 edible fishes in their nets, only in moderate or limited 

 quantities, for the reasou that edible fish in the waters of 

 tbe west end of Long Island Sound are not abundant and 

 are getting scarcer year by year. 



Alter a full and exhaustive discussion of the subject at 

 the annual meeting of the American Fisheries Society in 

 May, 1892, the following resolution was unanimously 

 adopted: 



Resolved, That the purposes and aims of this society are in direct 

 antagonism with any business which leads to the depopulation of the 

 waters to enrich the land, and we therefore condemn purse seining of 

 menhaden or any fish food or food fish for the purpose ot grindW 

 the same into guano or oil, within three miles of the shore at low 

 water mark. 



Prof. Huxley is often quoted by the purse net men, as well 

 as by some of the fish dealers, those wlio look first to the 

 percentage of gain from tbe fish caught and handled, regard- 

 less of the destruction and waste caused by the manner of 

 catching. These people tell us that Prof. Huxley once said 

 that "man was not a factor in the increase or decrease of sea 

 fishes." This opinion was expressed by Prof. Huxley on sea 

 fishes. Much use has been attempted to be made of it, but ic 

 fails to apply to the object of this conference, as expressed 

 in the call, which limits the scope of our inquiry to the shal- 

 low waters along our shore, in our bays and estuaries, and to 

 the fish therein destroyed and wantonly wasted. 



Fishes which seek tbese waters as their natural feeding 

 and spawning grounds, and, with one exception so far as 

 their habits are known, remain near the sbores, are the 

 fishes which this conference was called to consider. 



The deep sea fishing, as referred to by Prof. Huxley, is, in 

 its entirety, a subject wholly under control of nations, while 

 tbe .-bore fishing, the object of this conference, is wholly 

 under the control of individual States. 



Before leaving the subject of Prof. Huxley and his often- 

 quoted opinion. I would like to refer to another remark 



made by the same eminent scientist. This remark, not 

 quoted as often by fishermen as the other, was to the effect 

 that no class of people know as little about the habits of fish 

 as the men who catch them. 



Many here present will recollect the efforts of the men- 

 hadeu purse-net fishermen in 1892 to have Congress enact a 

 law (known as the Lapham Bill) giving the purse-net fisher- 

 men the right to use that net for catching menhaden and 

 mackerel in all waters along our coast, limited only by tide 

 and navigable water— the laws, habits or customs of any 

 States to the contrary notwthstanding. Strenuous efforts 

 were made to secure this law, but fortunately it failed, and 

 its failure saved the trouble and expense of testing its con- 

 stitutionality. 



The impression prevails that the menhaden fishery is an 

 oil and guano industry, whereas it is a guano and oil industry, 

 the value of its product of guano being larger than its pro- 

 duct of oil. I will submit a few figures taken from the 

 United States Report of Fish and Fisheries, Sec. 5, Vol. 1. 

 This report gives credit to the oil and guano association for 

 the figures as used, the figures being for the year 1890, the 

 only year for which full figures are furnished in the TJ. S. 

 Reports, although from partial figures given for the years 

 from 1872 to 1882, the year 1880 appears to have made the 

 largest, or best showing. The capital invested was $2,362,841; 

 value of product, $2,110,887; n umber of fish taken, 776,000,000; 

 steamers employed, 82; sailing vessels, 366; number of men 

 employed in fishing, 2,543; in factories, 1,092; total 3,635. The 

 number of gallons of oil products, 2,035,000; number of tons 

 of guano 71,000. The value of the oil products, $733,424, and 

 the value of guano, $1,362,866; tbe percentage of the value of 

 products being, oil 35%, guano 65$. 



There is another important matter to be considered in con- 

 nection with the use of the purse nets along our shores, and 

 that is the taking and driving therefrom of the menhaden, 

 the natural food of the biuefish and the striped bass. The 

 habits of these fish are to seek this food. A further serious 

 effect upon our supply of edible fishes along our coast from 

 the use of the pounds and purse nets is wrought by driving 

 and preventing fish, those fortunate enough "to escape tbe 

 nets, from their spawning grounds, thereby preventing to a 

 great extent reproduction, which, it must be admitted, is 

 the foundation of our future fish supply. 



As I have (qualifiedly) mentioned net men and fish dealers 

 as being indifferent to and at least in part responsible for 

 the growing scarcity of food fish along our shores through 

 their desire for gain of the dollar, still there are very many 

 honorable exceptions, and I trust the good work looking to 

 the future supply of edibre fish will "receive their earnest 

 support. 



1 would respectfully suggest the following remedy for the 

 preservation of the supply of edible fishes along our coast: 



First— That the use of any net in the tide waters of the 

 coast with mesh less than about l^in. bar be prohibited 

 under a penalty of say $100, with destruction of net. 



Second— That no portion of any pound net, or other 

 known device of the kind, shall be allowed to extend more 

 than 500ft. from the main shore, or shore of any island, 

 beyond the ordinary low water mark, with a penalty of 

 say $100 for violation of its provision, and destruction of 

 net. 



Third— That no purse net, or like device, shall be used 

 in any waters along the coast within one or two miles of the 

 shore, or the shore of any island, from ordinary low water 

 mark, with a penalty of say $100 and destruction of net. 



In my judgment, if this remedy in substance could be ap- 

 plied by being made a law in all of our seaboard States 

 trom Maine to North Carolina, it would do no injustice to 

 any interest, but would in time work a benefit to all. 



I will but briefly refer to the growing scarcity of the 

 lobster, not because it is of no great importance, but because 

 I have reason to believe that there will be those present at 

 this conference who are thoroughly competent to and will 

 speak a good word for this valuable Crustacea. 



The demand through increased consumption and by the 

 numerous canneries along the Eastern coast has become so 

 great that they are extensively caught and used at so small 

 a size as to greatly interfere with reproduction, which 

 seriously threatens the already depleted supply. To remedy 

 this evil and preserve this valuable food is a matter of very 

 great importance, and as with the edible fish along our 

 coast line, requires the united action, to a reasonable extent, 

 of a number of our seaboard States to prevent the taking, 

 killing, or possessing lobsters less than at least lOin. long 

 from nose to tail. 



Mr. E. G. Whitakee (N. Y.) said: There is no portion of 

 the policy of the State so little understood and so greatly 

 misconstrued as its policy of fish protection. It is looked 

 upon by a large number of people as favoring one class to the 

 exclusion of another. This is in no sense true. It has a 

 semblance of truth arisingfrnmthefact thatthelegal restric- 

 tions on taking fish afford sport and healthful recreation, 

 advantage of which is taken by people of means and leis- 

 ure. But the matter of amusement in no sense whatever 

 enters into the spirit and reason of the law, which only tries 

 to protect the fish in order that the food fish supply may not 

 be diminished. It is a mere coincidence that the au- 

 thorized methods afford sport, for they are the only ones 

 consistent wish fish preservation. The authorized methods 

 inure to the benefit of all, without distinction, It is not for the 

 delectation of those who enjoy hook and line fishing that the 

 use of nets is prohibited in inland fresh waters,.and their use 

 in salt waters regulated. It is because such prohibition and 

 regulation are necessary in order to avoid absolute depletion 

 of the waters. It is not for the delectation of the hook and 

 line fisher that the use of hooks and lines is permitted; but 

 simply because that is the only means that does not materi- 

 ally diminish or injure the steady supply of fish. I want to 

 assure every member of this conference that the Fish Com- 

 mission of New York is not engaged in an attempt to pre- 

 serve fish in order simply that hook and line fishermen may 

 find sport. It is moved simply by a desire to preserve the 

 fish for the benefit of all the people, in order that they may 

 get fish food at the lowest possible price. But fish are in- 

 tended for food, and no class of business is justified in mon- 

 opolizing a food article for private gain in the manufacture 

 of fertilizer. 



Mr. Daniel T. Church rose to reply to the paper submit- 

 ted by Mr. Huntington. The net fishermen might seem to 

 be inconsistent when they admit the taking of one 100 or 200 

 barrels of food fish after having denied that they take any 

 food fish. But there is no inconsistencv. When one looks 

 over a field he sees that horses are in one body, that cows 

 keep by themselves; each species keeps bv itself. So it 

 is with fishes; the menhaden go in schools; the mack- 

 erel, the weakfish, the striped bass, each in its own scucol 

 and rarely are they mixed. But once in a while two 

 or three kinds will be caught at once. This will explain 

 tbe incident of the lot of fish at Sandy Hook that had 

 been referred to. But while a barrel containing 2001bs 

 of menhaden were worth about $1, a barrel of 2001 bs. of food 

 fish would be. worth 2 cents, 4 cents, 5 cents and sometimes 

 12 cents a pound. Occasionally, in the 20 or 3u years that we 

 have been in the business, we have caught food fish in 

 quantity and sold them for a good sum "of money. Such 

 catches are not carried to the factory, but to market, and 

 that is a matter of common sense. Now, if it can be proven 

 that there is no diminution of supply, and that the public 

 are getting 20 fish where years ago they got only one, it must 

 be that we are on the side of the public, and not their enemy. 



MR. A. M. Spangler (Philadelphia) inquired how long 

 such a catch would remain in marketable condition, and 

 what preparations had they on hand for the purpose of keep- 



