THE SOUTHERN SPRING MACKEREL FISHERY. 
201 
Fourth. The lish taken in the southern spring inaekerel lishery are of very 
inferior quality, and not really wholesome food when eaten fresh; furthermore, lish 
salted at this season are of decidedly poor (quality as compared with those caught 
farther north later in the season. 
Fifth. Some of the dealers claim that putting large quantities of fresh mackerel 
on the market interferes with the trade and reduces the prices for salt mackerel. The 
salt- fish dealers are almost unanimously of the opinion that in former years, and to a 
less extent recently, the landing of poor salt mackerel caught and packed during this 
southern fishery has had a depressing infiuence on the trade in salt mackerel, in that 
it prejudices the consumers against salt mackerel in general as a diet; further, the 
arrival of new salt mackerel in New York early in the season and the announcement 
to the trade that new mackerel have arrived, diminishes to a very large extent the 
sale of old mackerel and causes great dilficulty in working off the stock which has 
been held over from the previous season, necessitating a reduction in price in order to 
dispose of it. 
Sixth. Those favoring the suspension of the fishery were not united as to the 
length of time the fishery should be discontinued each season. While the iiossibility 
of the mackerel not completing the spawning process by June 1 was generally acknowl- 
edged, objection was made to an extension of the close season to July 1 or later, on the 
ground that the fisherman would not be content to remain idle so late in the year and 
that the vessels should start by that time in order to get an idea of the location, move- 
ments, and abundance of the fish. It was urged as an argument that the fishery after 
the 1st of June would not seriously interfere with the future abundance of the fish, 
that during the spawning season the fish are usually scattered and at the bottom, and 
that there is little probability of the vessels taking great quantities at this period. 
Most of these arguments for the prohibition of the fishery were combated by those 
who favored its unrestricted continuance. The opposition to the proposed legislation 
was based chiefiy on the following grounds: 
First. Oougressioual interference with the ocean fisheries establishes a dangerous 
precedent. To prevent the capture of a iielagic fish that moves about freely in the 
ocean and whose habits are not fully understood, and to attempt the application to the 
high seas of the usual fish and game legislation, are serious steps. 
Second. There is no indisputable evidence that catching mackerel in spring, or at 
any other time, affects the general abundance of the fish. Prohibition of this fisliery 
should not be resorted to without positive proof of the necessity for such action. The 
contention is not established that the use of purse seines or the prosecution of this 
southern fishery is having the effect of changing the direction of the movements of 
the schools and is driving them from our shores. 
Third. The limitation of the close season to June 1 rather than to the end of the 
spawning time shows the insincerity of those who urge that legislation is necessary 
for the preservation of the fish. To have any appreciable infiuence on the protection 
of the mackerel prior to spawning, the close time should be extended to July 1 or 
even to July 15. 
Fourth. Fresh mackerel taken in this fishery form a cheap, wholesome food for 
thousands of people who can not afford to buy the higher grades of fish. The low price 
of mackerel iu seasons of abundance is a great boon to a large part of the population. 
