218 
BULLETIN OF THE UNITED STATES FISH COMMISSION. 
Mr. Lore. That may be so, sir, and yet I take it that the mimber of fish we take ont of the sea 
is the best indication we have of the number of iish in the sea. Certainly it is a better means of 
ganging the supply than a mere speculation ])ased upon no facts whatever. That the supply of these 
fish will not be diminished in this way it seems to me has been most clearly demonstrated by the gen- 
tleman from New York [Mr. Hewitt]. 
I remember that a few years ago the old method of catching oysters in Chesapeake Bay by 
the fishermen of Maryland and Virginia was “ tonging.” Then the dredge system was introduced, and 
the fishermen raked the oyster l)eds from one end of the Chesapeake to the other wherever they could 
find them. There was a terrific outcry on the part of the tongers that this would destroy the supply; 
but the result simply was that instead of having oyster beds scattered here and there at special points 
on the bottom of the bay, the dredges dragged them all over it and made the bottom of Chesapeake 
Bay almost one continuous oyster bed, and the oysters were multiplied by the thousand. This grew 
out of the fecundity of the oyster spawn, rivaling to some extent the mackerel in this respect. I 
know that the analogy between the two cases i.s not complete at all points, but I mention this to 
show that the alarm which arises as to the results of new methods is frequently without foundation 
or any just cause. 
Mr. Boutellk. Do I understand the gentleman to say that the supply of oysters has not been dis- 
advantageously affected by the use of the dredge? My impression was very decidedly to the contrary. 
Mr. Lore. Well, I spe.ak of what I know. I have it Irom the tongers, as well as from the 
dredgers, that the effect has simply been to spread the oyster beds over the bottom of the bay and 
make it almost one continuous oyster bed. As I have said, however, I mention this merely to show 
that the fears of men in such cases are not always warranted by the facts. 
Mr. Chairman, when men speak of the diminution of the fish supply from cause stated it is a 
mere conjecture. The report of the committee itself shows that the catch, instead of dimiuishiug, 
has increased; and I say that when it is shown as a matter of fact that more fish have been taken out 
of the water in a given time it is a fair inference that more have been taken because the supply in the 
water was larger. 
Mr. Boutelle. Suppose that the Congress of the ITnited States should address itself to the work 
of decreasing or rendering extinct the mackerel on our coast (if they should deem that to be a public 
necessity), can the gentleman conceive of any more efficient manner of starting the experiment than 
by fitting out a lleet of vessels to use the ])urse net to take these fish at the spawning season? Is not 
that exactly what Congress would do if it were going to invest Professor Baird with power to experi- 
ment as to the best means of rendering the mackerel extinct? 
Mr. Lore. I will answer my friend, although I think he has been already completely answered 
by the gentleman from New Vork [Mr. Hewitt]. The answer is this: These fish are preyed upon not 
only by man, but by a great number of the denizens of the sea, and the share that man takes in their 
destruction is but as a drop in the ocean ; the number that are taken and consumed by man is trifling 
compared with the multitudes that swarm along our coasts and are consumed in other ways. There- 
fore, I say you may adopt any device you please, you can not destroy the supply. When you remember 
that a single female mackerel scatters in the si>awniug season from .500,000 to 1,000,000 eggs, you can 
see that the supply must be practically unlimited, and that it will not be seriously affected whatever 
devices you may employ. 
Mr. Boutelee. But the gentleman overlooks this fact. When the spawn is thrown out upon 
the sea and becomes subject to the ravages of those destructive enemies to which the gentleman 
refens, there is yet .a percentage of a chance of its fecundation; but when the fishermen go out with 
their purse nets and scoop in the fish containing I he spawn before it is shed at all, then all possible 
chance of reproduction from that source is utterly lost. 
Mr. Lore. I concede that; but take all you possildy can, the catch is so insignificant in quan- 
tity that there is still left enough to people the seas with these fish in inexhaustible supply. No fact 
has been produced to the contrary. So far .as anything is demonstrated in the case, it is that the 
c.atch has not decreased; and, .as 1 have said, it is fair to infer from that that the supply is at least 
as great as it was l)efore. 
Mr. Boutelle. Fishermen who petition here urge that the quantity h.as largely decreased; and, 
as I understand, Profes.sor Baird states distinctly he is not sure this fishing during the spawning 
season will not have the direct effect of decreasing the supply. 
Mr. Lore. Well, he does not know what may occur iu the future. But the p.ast and present .are 
our teachers. The gentleman from New York [Mr. Hewitt] has just put iu my hands a statement 
