Feb. 17, 1894.] 



FOREST AND STREAM. 



148 



money of the United States as the investigation of the men- 

 haden. Prof. G. Browne Goode has written a book on this 

 subject. The Commissioner has attended investigation after 

 investigation by committees of Congress. He has had his 



which were preparing to consider the "La ph am Bill" if it 

 were passed 65 the House, "very little is definitely known as 

 to the spawning of the menhaden. " 



Until Col. McDonald spoke yesterday there was no definite 

 statement, as the result of the most exhaustive investiga- 

 tion ever made as to where menhaden spawn. 



The appointment of a commission, it would seem tome, 

 would be barren of result for the reasons stated, ft is fre- 

 quently said that the Pish Commission is not opposed to the 

 use of pounds. Mr. Spencer F. Baird, after calling atten- 

 tion to the fact that there, has been an alarming decrease in 

 the supply of fish, calls attention to the mischief which 

 pounds and weirs have caused, including the loss of food 

 to a, large class of people who are idle. He goes on to say: 



"The decrease of the fish mav be considered as due to the 

 combined action of the fish pounds or weirs and the bluefish, 

 the former destroying a very large percentage of the spawn- 

 ing fish before they have deposited their eggs, and the latter 

 devouring immense numbers of young fish after they have 

 passed the ordinary perils of immaturity. 



"There are no measures at our command for destroying 

 the bluefish, nor would it be desirable to do this, in view of 

 their valine as an article of food. The alternative is to regu- 

 late the action of the pounds so as to prevent the destruction 

 of fish during the spawning season. 



"The quickest remedy would be the absolute abolition of 

 the traps and pounds." 



He also says: "Many persons are in the habit of consider- 

 ing that the fish supply of the sea is practically inexhaust- 

 ible, and therefore that a scarcity of any particular location 

 is to be referred rather to the movements of the fish, in 

 changing their feeding grounds capriciously, or else in 'fol- 

 lowing the migration from place to place of the food upon 

 which they live. This may be true to a certain extent, as 

 we shall hereafter show; but it is difficult to point out any 

 locality where, near the shores in the New England States at 

 least, tinder the most favorable view of the case, the fish 

 are quite as plentiful as they were some years ago. It is by 

 no means to be inferred from our remarks as to the scarcity 

 of fish that fewer are actually caught now than formerly at 

 any time; the contrary, perhaps, being the case, since by 

 means of the improved methods of capture, in the way of 

 pounds and nets, an immense supply is taken out at certain 

 seasons of the year, so as to frequently glut the markets 

 The scarcity referred to is better shown by the great diffi- 

 culty experienced by line fishermen in securing a proper 

 supply throughout the year on grounds where they were 

 formerly able to catch all they needed for their own use and 

 for sale. 



"The evil effects of the state of things here indicated are 

 felt in many ways; primarily on the part of many fishermen 

 resident on the coast who have been in the habit of making 

 a living by the proceeds of their occupation not only sum 

 plying themselves with food, fresh and salt, for the year 

 but also making a comfortable living by sales of ther sur- 

 plus. At the present time this resource is cut off to a great 

 degree from this class of people in many places on the Mas- 

 sachusetts coast, where, as on Nantucket. Martha's Vineyard 

 and elsewhere, the deprivation from the loss of profits by 

 fishing is being most seriously felt. The result, of course, of 

 the inability to make a living in this manner is to drive the 

 line fishermen to other occupations, and especially to induce 

 them to leave the State for other fields of industry." 



He further said that it is unfair to vested interests to 

 absolutely prohibit the use of pounds, and that the condi- 

 tions of the problem are such that it is only during the 

 spawning season that fish come to the coast and so are 

 within the reach of man, and also the mischief of man's 

 energy is greatest when exerted at that time. He therefore 

 advises a reasonable regulation, consisting of a close season 

 on weirs and pounds. It is very possible that that is the 

 remedy which 1% really open to this conference, most fair to 

 invested capital and most thoroughly in the best interests of 

 the fisheries. 



Mr. D. T. Church— You said that Spencer F. Baird 

 framed a law for the purpose of prohibit ing the use of pound 

 nets in the State of Rhode Island. That law was backed 

 by public opinion for the reason that for twenty years the 

 scup had almost totally disappeared. Mr. Baird, in connec- 

 tion with this, offered a bill that was introduced in the 

 Rhode Island Legislature, and one of the terms of the bill 

 was to destroy these nets, if found in the waters, without 

 judge or jury. But we escaped and Professor Baird saved us 

 for m the following year the greatest crop of scup that was 

 ever known appeared on the coast of New England, and Mr 

 Baird is on record as saying that he was confounded by the 

 large supply. Mr. Baird said if the law had been passed 

 and our traps and pounds had not been allowed to be put in 

 the water the increase in fish would have been credited to 

 the restrictive laws. 



Mr. Chambeelav/ne said, in reply to Mr. Church: I have 

 'examined the statements of Mr. Baird, There is nothing in 

 any of his statements which covers the ground. 



Mr. Church— That statement was made about 1870. As a 

 matter of fact, since then, between the years 1890 and 1*93 

 every fish that has its home in the waters of southern New 

 England were never more plentiful, a result exactly con- 

 trary to Mr. Baird's prophecy and statement. I will leave 

 the whole matter to any one that will go in as a disinterested 

 man and take the testimony and find out that what Mr. 

 Baird stated was a mistake, and that there is not a single fish 

 whose habitat is between Sandy Hook and Cape Cod but 

 what has been plentiful since 1890. 



On motion of Mr. D. T. Church the Conference then ad 

 journed sine die, with the understanding that should there 

 be need for a future conference the call will be issued. 



The following papers were handed in for publication: 



This paper, presented by Capt. D. T. Church on the first 

 day of the Conference, was handed in too late for insertion in 

 its proper place. Mr. Church said: 



The industrial fishermen at this convention represent mil- 

 lions of capital invested in mackerel, cod, scup and other 

 fisheries. They employ ashore and afloat several thousand 

 fishermen and laborers, whose prosperity depends on the suc- 

 cess of the interests we are here to defend. 



There is not one of us but what believes that regulation of 

 our fisheries means disaster to us all, with no advantage 

 whatever to those who ask for regulation. 



The experience in Holland, where they tried regulation for 

 400 years, exactly agrees with our observations, and it seem* 

 unreasonable for us to pursue a course (that is sure to be at- 

 tended with disaster) that has been abandoned by England 

 and Holland after a trial of centuries, Holland sttBsfcitotang 

 absolute free fishing, and the great English commission 

 recommending the same policy in their report to the English 

 Parliament in 1S64. 



Rhode Island has had twenty-three years' experience with 

 free fishing from 1S70 to 1893, and there is not the slightest 

 evidence that there is any diminution in the supply of its 

 food fish. 



Since 1870 there is not a single fish known to our seacoast 

 waters but what has been, at times, as plenty as ever before 

 known, also very scarce, proving conclusively Huxley's 

 statement to be true, that man is not a factor to be reckoned 

 With m trying to explain the mysterious appearances and 

 disappearances of tide water fish. 



United States Fish Commissioner McDonald unfortunately 

 takes his position with our adversaries, antagonizing the re 

 suit of the English Commission's investigation, also Hol- 

 land's 300 years of experience, and talks of remnants of fish 

 when it is not remnants but floods that have confronted us 

 periodically, in quantities equal to any ever before known in 

 this country; and all fishes known to our waters have given 

 us examples since 1870. 



The scup made their appearance in Narragansett Bay in 

 1800, and disappeared in 1870 or nearly so. The pound men 

 were thought to have caught them up, and a law abolishing 

 traps was introduced in the Legislature backed by a strong 

 public opinion, but it failed to pass, and the scup came back 

 again plenty as ever, with the traps unrestricted. Without 

 question, scup in the vicinity of Narragansett Bay were as 

 plenty as ever before from 1890to 1893 The following figures, 

 taken from the Fall River Line books, covering the last ten 

 years, are instructive in this connection, for they refer mostly 

 to scup: 



Barrels. Barrels. 



1882 8,392 1888 13,327 



1883 8,865 1889 17,597 



1884 ,16,062 1890 7,696 



1S85 15,263 1891 17,51)2 



1886 14,586 1893 25.253 



1887 14,460 1893 35,8« 



The small shipment of 1890 is accounted for by the fact 

 that there were but few large scup on our coast that season, 

 but an unheard of quantity, weighing twenty-five to the 

 pound. It would be interesting to the public to have all the 

 fluctuations of our coast fisheries for the last twenty years, 

 from the Penobscot to the Delaware, put on a chart. Their 

 ups and downs would show almost as regularly as waves of 

 the sea Professor Baird once showed me a mackeral chart 

 showing the fluctuations of that fish. In his remarks he 

 spoke of the extremes as periods of plenty and scarcity. The 

 chart showed a year of great scarcity about fifty years before, 

 which was long before purse seines were in use for taking 

 mackerel. 



Tautog, in 1856, were very plenty from Wellfleet to New 

 Jersey, and there was quite a fleet of smacks that year en- 

 gaged in taking that fish for market, but the extreme cold of 

 the" following winter froze most of them, and as a regular 

 fishery that was abandoned by all in 1857. Since then there 

 have been several periods of scarcity and plenty, but the 1892 

 crop was equal to, or ahead of any ever known. 



The following letter from S. B. Mulleris instructive in this 

 connection, for it will be noticed he names three of our coast 

 fishes as plenty during the season of 1892, especially weakfish 



Mew York, Jan. 11, 1893. — D. T. Church: Dear Sir— Your letter at 

 hand asking for information about blae'tfish. Well, I will say they 

 were very plenty and very cheap. I have no recollection of seeing them 

 more plentiful in the last fifty years, and at the end of the season for 

 shipping thfim in barrels. The smacks began to arrive with live ones 

 until at one time it. was estimated there was alive in the dock more 

 than one hundred thousand pounds. But they are out at a much less 

 price than any year for the last ten years. Bluefish and weakfish have 

 been through the season very plenty. I never knew weakfish as plenty 

 and as cheap in my time. One cent per pound was considered a good 

 price for many days and many ton 5 were sold for less. Yours, 



8. B. Miller. 



Weakfish in Narragansett Bay and vicinity were extremely 

 plenty during the fishing season of 1893, notwithstanding the 

 fact that there were over 100 traps and pounds set between 

 Block Island, Providence and Fall River. Without ques- 

 tion, this year's crop exceeded any ever before known, and 

 the curious thing is none can be taken with a hook, or hardly 

 any, showing that but for the pounds they might have come 

 and gone, and no one would have known that they had been 

 here. 



We should like to have Commissioner McDonald square 

 his "remnant" statement with the fact that as a whole 

 there were more weakfish present on our coast last season 

 than ever before known; also with the tautog flood of 1892 

 the bluefish flood of 1890, the scup flood of 1890-93, the men- 

 haden flood of 1888, the mackerel flood of 1884, the Silver 

 Lake flood of 1893, the sea bass flood of 1884, and the two or 

 three striped bass floods that have been present on our coasts 

 within the last ten years. They all controvert McDonald's 

 "remnant" theory, and prove it a myth. 



The King of Holland, at the opening of the legislative 

 session 1865-6 used the following language: 



"Up to 1857 the Dutch fisheries were burdened with many 

 restrictions, intended for their protection and encourage- 

 ment. The period within which herrings could be fished 

 was limited. The places of fishing, the time, the nets, and 

 the tackle were all under regulations. But the fishery 

 languished and declined, and it was determined by the Legis- 

 lature to try the effect of another system. A law was passed 

 in 1857 abolishing all restrictions, regulations and enactments 

 as to close time, trawds, nets and lines. Every one was left 

 free to fish the sea in any mode, and at any time he deemed 

 most advantageous, while a Fishery Commission was estab- 

 lished to collect the statistics of the various fisheries, and 

 report annually to the Legislature upon all matters affecting 

 the interest of the fisheries. 



"The result has been a steady and continuous improve- 

 ment. The last report of the Commission shows greater 

 anxiety to find new markets in foreign countries for the fish 

 than about the prospects of an abundant catch. The Com- 

 missioners conceive that the future prosperity of the Dutch 

 fisheries will depend on a profitable outlet for the fish bein°- 

 found by a freer intercourse with neighboring countries. A 

 return is given of the number of vessels employed in the 

 herring fishery at Scheveningen, and their annual catch 

 which rises from 24,969,000 in 1858 to 33,535,000 in 1864. The 

 export of cured herring from all parts of the country had 

 risen from 30,919,271 'stuks' in 1858 to 42,698,000 in 1864." 



Thirty years ago it was claimed in England, as it is in the 

 United States to-day, that improved methods of taking fish 

 with nets, seines and other contrivances was diminishing the 

 supply of fish, resulting in the appointment by the Queen of 

 James Caird, Thomas Henry Huxley and George Shaw Le- 

 fevre to inquire into the condition of the sea fisheries of the 

 United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. 



Their conclusion, after a three-years' exhaustive inquiry 

 was expressed in the following words: ' 



"We find the laws relating to sea fisheries to be compli- 

 cated, confused and unsatisfactory; many restrictions, even 

 of late date, are never enforced; many would be extremely 

 injurious to the interests of the fisheries and of the commu- 

 nity if they were enforced; and with respect to these and 

 others, the highest legal authorities are unable to decide 

 where and in what precise sense they are operative," and they 

 recommend as follows: 



"We advise that all acts of Parliament which profess to 

 regulate or restrict the modes of fishing pursued in the open 

 sea be repealed, and that unrestricted freedom of fishing be 

 pursued hereafter, and for the present we advise that all acts 

 of Parliament which profess to regulate or restrict the modes 

 of fishing pursued inshore be repealed, with the exceptions 

 purely on grounds of policy, of the local act regulating 

 pilchard fishing at St. Ives, aud for that part of Loch Fyue 

 which lies above Otter Spit, of the act prohibiting trawlins 

 for herrings in Scotland." 



By Mr. Robert Walsh: 



This question should not be approached unintelligently 

 From the evidence of the best known and most widely expe- 

 rienced men engaged in fishing as well as from the writings 

 and researches of the scientists and ichthyologists of the 

 United States Bureau of Fish and Fisheries we have in this 

 country alone sufficient data to decide whether or not repres- 



sive legislation would be advisable. 'But as this evidence has 

 already been placed on record in the publications of such 

 men as Capt Collins, Mr. Atwood, Capt. Church and others 

 before the Senate of the United States in connection with 

 the reception of evidence concerning the Lapham bill, I think 

 that my appearance in the matter will be more profitably 

 confined to elucidating the comparative effects of such legis- 

 lation m Great Britain and European countries. 



As a matter of fact knowledge of the habits of sea fishes 

 was very imperfect until recent years, but the economic 

 value of the supply of fish attracted considerable attention 

 from legislators and rulers from the earliest times, aud as a 

 consequence from time to time enactments, progressive or 

 repressive, were petitioned for and considered. For instance 

 in 167o the fishermen of the southern Irish coast petitioned 

 the King through Secretary Burchard that the length of the 

 nets used by the French fishermen broke the shoals of the 

 pilchards and drove them from the coast. This petition 

 prayed that the Government should restrict the use of these 

 long nets by the Frenchmen; but for some reason or other 

 the request of the Irish fishermen was not acceded to, and 

 the Frenchmen continued to fish for pilchards inshore and in 

 the deep sea without restraint. It is recorded in the annals 

 of Kinsale that for three years, from 1675 to 1678, the supply 

 ot pilchards diminished to such an extent that the native 

 fishermen discontinued that iudustry. The falling off in the 

 supply was attributed to "the depredations of the French- 

 men; but in the following year, 1679, notwithstanding that 

 a fleet of three hundred French sail, each boat carrying nets 

 one league in length" swept the coast with these nine hun- 

 dred leagues of nets uninterruptedly, previous to and during 

 the three seasons referred to. the pilchards returned in 

 greater numbers thau ever before seen on this coast. " This 

 fact is proved from the writings of Sir Robert Southwell, 

 who was himself one of the signers of the petition to 

 Secretary Burchard in 1675. 



v. In 1881, '82 and '83 a somewhat similar petition was made 

 by the fishermen on the southern Irish coast concerning the 

 too early fashing for herring by the Scotch fishermen. I was 

 at that time chairman of the South of Ireland Fishing Com- 

 pany, and relying simply on the statements of the local fish- 

 ermen 1 heartily approved of their appeal for repressive 

 legislation m connection with the south of Ireland herring 

 fishery, 111 the shape of instituting a close season, I had not 

 then made any research into the habits of the fishes or con- 

 cerning the effects of men's efforts, by any method for their 

 capture, upon the supply, and, with others who were as 

 deeply interested in the progressive development of the Irish 

 fisheries as was I, I was astounded when Prof. Huxley and 

 other famous scientists as well as inspectors of fisheries ap- 

 pointed by Her Majesty's Government, pooh-poohed our re- 

 quest, and informed us that not alone was there no necessity 

 tor appointing a close season, but that from their observa- 

 tions and investigations they had decided that the supply of 

 herrings or of other migratory fishes could not be diminished 

 by any means or appliances tha,t could be used by men for 

 their capture. 



The fishermen and boat owners on the southern Irish coast, 

 myself among the number, felt aggrieved by this decision, 

 and it was universally predicted that the herrings would be 

 driven from our coast by the fact of the Scotch fishermen 

 plying their nets— over two thousand miles of them— before 

 t he time when the Irish fishermen considered that the season 

 should begin. But no such result has happened. It is true 

 that sometimes for a season or two, or even for five or ten 

 years the supply of herring and other migratory fishes, such 

 as mackerel, pilchard, etc., seem to disappear, altogether or 

 partially, from the coast. But as regularly, or perhaps I 

 should say as irregularly, they return with increasing num- 

 bers as did the pilchards in 1679. 



These are matters which it will be observed have come 

 under my own personal observation and with which I was 

 intimately connected. It will be understood from what I 

 have said that during the year 1880, '81 and '82, I was under 

 the impression that fishing for migratory fishes at irregular 

 periods and with destructive appliauces was economically 

 dangerous to the progress of a fishing industry. But upon 

 learning the decision of the authorities to whom I referred to 

 concerning the effect or rather the inutility of curtailing 

 methods employed for the capture of fishes, I studied the 

 question and arrived at the conclusion that the comings and 

 goings of migratory fishes or their reproduction cannot be 

 influenced by man. 



Bearing out the statement which I have just made, and 

 U ,P°^ ™ ucn higher and practically unimpeachable authority 

 the following quotation from the report of the Commission 

 appointed by Her Majesty the Queen of Great Britain, unqual- 

 ifiedly takes the position that the supply of migratory fishes 

 cannot be increased or diminished by man, That Commis- 

 sion consisted of Professor Thomas Henry Huxley, the Rt 

 I™' Geo. Shaw LeFevre, and the Rt. Hon. James Caird. 

 W ith all the resources of the British Government at their 

 disposal, and after three years of exhaustive inquiry into the 

 condition of the sea fisheries of the United Kingdom of 

 Great Britain aud Ireland, these men deliberately presented 

 the following report: 



"We find the laws relating to sea fisheries to be complicated, 

 confused and unsatisfactory; many restrictions, even of late 

 date, are never enforced; many would be extremely injurious 

 to the interests of the fishermen and of the community if they 

 were enforced, and with respect to these and others the high- 

 est legal authorities are unable to decide where and in what 

 precise sense they are operative. 



"We advise that all acts of Parliament which profess to 

 regulate or restrict the mode of fishing pursued in " the open 

 sea be repealed, and that unrestricted freedom of fishing be 

 pursued hereafter; and for the present we advise that all acts 

 of Parliament which profess to regulate or restrict the modes 

 of fishing pursued inshore be repealed." 



In the face of this statement, aud bearing in mind the high 

 authority and the historical data at their command concern- 

 ing the conditions of the fisheries which they investigated it 

 is impossible to come to any other conclusion than that the 

 supply of migratory fishes is practically inexhaustible. But 

 1 cannot quite agree with that portion of the report of the 

 Royal Commission referred to which suggests the advisabil- 

 ity of enacting laws to permit the unrestricted freedom of 

 fishing inshore. As a matter of fact, in the course of his ad- 

 dress at the International Fisheries Exhibition in London, in 

 1883 Prof Huxley made it very plain that the statement 

 made by him and the other Commissioners referred chiefly to 

 migratory fishes. Monsieur Rimbaud, one of the greatest 

 French authorities, states that the supply of migratory 

 fishes is absolutely inexhaustible and cannot be affected by 

 any means or appliances adopted by men for their capture. 

 But he asserts, and it is pretty generally conceded, that fishes 

 which spawn locally inshore might be depleted or even ex- 

 hausted by continuous or depredatory fishing. The class of 

 fishes known as inshore or local fishes does not comprise 

 mackerel, herring, bluefish, striped bass, whitefish, men- 

 haden or any other of the great species that form the basis of 

 our industrial fisheries. 



I shall only give one other example of the effect of repres- 

 sive legislation on the economic and industrial development 

 of fisheries, and this example should of itself be considered 

 of serious import in the discussion of any question relating 

 to proposed restrictions, or for the protection of fisheries. In 

 the opening of the legislative session of the Dutch Parlia- 

 ment in 1865 66 the King of Holland drew attention to the 

 fact that for three hundred years, "up to 1857 the Dutch 

 Fisheries were burdened with many restrictions intended 

 for their prosecution and encouragement. The period within 

 which herrings could be fished was limited. The places of 

 fishing, the times, the nets and the tackle were all under 

 regulations. But the fishery languishod and declined and 



