5 G 2 
FOREST AND STREAM 
May 4, 1912 
Game and Fish of Ontario 
W HILE conservation of natural products of 
the Dominion is at present receiving, to 
some extent, from the authorities the at¬ 
tention this very important matter deserves, it is 
difficult to realize the continuation of the de¬ 
structive and unwise policy of those entrusted 
with the formulation of the laws and regulations 
pertaining to one of the most valuable natural 
products of the Province, viz.: the fisheries. 
Nature’s laws of reproduction should be ob¬ 
served and strictly enforced. Failure to do so 
incurs serious penalties. Nature has wisely or¬ 
dained and provided seasons in each recurring 
year which the various animals, birds and fish 
are to devote to the propagation of their respec¬ 
tive species. I would like to know what pos¬ 
sible excuse or reason the Department of Marine 
and Fisheries at Ottawa can adduce for their 
short-sighted and unnatural conduct in abolish¬ 
ing the close seasons, as they have done for a 
number of years past. Even by the widest 
stretch of imagination we cannot credit them 
with having done so with the intention of pro¬ 
tecting and perpetuating this very valuable asset 
of the Province. It is to be hoped that recent 
changes will result in wiser counsels prevail¬ 
ing, and that the Province will in the near future 
be conceded its undoubted right to protect and 
dispose of its own property without vexatious 
interference. 
The wisdom of observing and respecting 
nature’s laws I can Illustrate by a practical case. 
Some six years ago, from a combination of un¬ 
fortunate circumstances, our most valuable 
native game bird, whose habitat is the whole 
Province, the ruffed grouse, more generally 
known as the partridge, was almost extermi¬ 
nated. What would have been the result had we 
followed the unwise course the Department of 
Marine and Fisheries have adopted for years 
past regarding nature’s close season for fish in 
Ontario? In the case of the ruffed grouse we 
had two close seasons, and then reduced the 
open season to one month, with the result that 
they have been more numerous during the last 
two seasons in our Northern woods than for 
many years past. Now, supposing we had been 
unwise enough to have employed men five years 
ago to scour the nearly depleted woods to kill 
the few remaining birds on their nests and de¬ 
stroy the eggs, our partridge would ere this be 
as great a rarity as the wild pigeon. This is 
practically what the Department of Marine and 
Fisheries have been doing with the fisheries of 
the Province. Whitefish do not spawn in the 
foul and putrid waters of Lake Erie that ex¬ 
tend for many miles from the American shore, 
but congregate in countless numbers in Canadian 
waters for that purpose. 
To such an extent does this prevail that the 
authorities of several States bordering on Lake 
Erie annually ask permission to procure spawn 
for their hatcheries from our waters not procur¬ 
able in their own. It will be patent, even to 
those who are not conversant with fishery mat¬ 
ters, that allowing the destruction year after year 
*From the fifth annual report of the Game and Fish¬ 
eries Department. 
By E. TINSLEY 
of the only reproductive source of supply avail¬ 
able, will not have the tendency to perpetuate 
the incalculably valuable heritage nature has so 
generously endowed the Province with. We 
should not have an elevated opinion of a farm¬ 
er’s sanity who, after having at great expense 
prepared his land for the seed, destroyed the 
seed instead of sowing it, and then expected 
crops. This is precisely what divided jurisdic¬ 
tion and certain exigencies have entailed on the 
fisheries of the Province. During extended open 
seasons, cars in which shipments of whitefish 
have been made, have the floors covered inches 
deep with spawn exuding from the boxes. It 
is generally understood that bona fide fishermen 
and reputable dealers are, as a rule, adverse to 
any meddling interference with the respective 
close seasons. Of course there are fishe' men 
and fishermen. Those that are not bona fid i are 
capitalists of various degrees, who use all means 
known to them to procure commercial licenses 
with the intention of making all the money they 
possibly can in a few years, irrespective of sea¬ 
sons and without a thought or care for the 
future of the fisheries. These are the men who 
are responsible in a large measure for these 
periodical infractions of nature’s laws. Shortly 
before the close seasons (the month of Novem¬ 
ber for whitefish and salmon trout), the modus 
operandi of these men has been for one or two 
of these self-constituted philanthropists to visit 
Ottawa, presumably with charitable purposes in¬ 
tent, and deliver themselves of a hard luck yarn, 
bewailing the fate of the poor fisherman, stating 
that the fishing has not been remunerative, and 
asking that they be allowed to improve it for 
other seasons by the somewhat questionable 
methods of destroying with impunity the sole 
and only source of supply. 
There are other causes having most destruc¬ 
tive effects on the fisheries, viz.: the widespread 
system of pollution of our lakes, rivers and 
streams. Nature never intended these one-time 
beautiful waters to be turned into death-dealing 
pestilential swamps and pools. I regret that 
many tug fishermen are alleged to make a prac¬ 
tice of dumping the offal into the waters. This 
we may cope with to some extent, but in matters 
of general pollution we are comparatively help¬ 
less. There is no doubt that pollution of public 
waters is increasing at an alarming rate in the 
lakes, bays and rivers in both countries. Nets 
set in Lake Ontario seven or eight miles from 
the outlet of the Niagara River, after a storm, 
are so saturated with sewage and tangled up 
with sewer rubbish as to make them worthless. 
I have dealt with these matters at some length— 
matters that under some of the unfortunate con¬ 
ditions it is not in our power to improve. 
The Department have numerous requests to re¬ 
stock waters with game fish from various parts 
of the Province; as a rule for waters unfit to 
sustain fish life. These applicants should re¬ 
member that the Lord helps them that help them¬ 
selves. Those who want restocking done in 
public waters, either to attract tourists or for 
the pleasure and profit of the residents, must in 
future either prevent the waters being contami¬ 
nated with sewage or deleterious waste from 
factories, or do without fish. For several years 
the department has been doing all possible to 
prevent the netting and spearing of game fish 
on their spawning grounds in the spring and 
prevent the use of the illegal and destructive 
trap nets, and have met with some success in so 
doing. I have been told that we are not con¬ 
sistent in preventing farmers and others taking 
game fish from the spawning grounds for their 
own use, and allowing the commercial fishermen, 
under similar conditions, to take whitefish off 
their spawning grounds with impunity for the 
purpose of supplying the United States market. 
There is urgent necessity, if the fisheries of 
the Province are to be perpetuated, for the re¬ 
moval at once and for all time of all interfer¬ 
ence during the close seasons with nature’s per¬ 
fect plan of reproduction from whatever source 
it emanates. Close seasons should be applicable 
to the whole Province, and no conditions or 
exigency should be an excuse for encroaching 
on the inadequate close seasons provided for by 
present regulations. If artificial propagation has 
been the success claimed, why are those States 
where it has been in use for many years, and 
close seasons ignored, compelled to procure 
spawn from our waters, not procurable in their 
own waters in which such fabulous numbers of 
fry are alleged to have been deposited annually 
for the last twenty or thirty years? Hatcheries 
having failed to keep up the required supply, it 
seems to me that it would be in accordance with 
common sense for those responsible for the 
failure to again revert to nature’s perfect plan 
by establishing and compelling strict observance 
of close seasons. I have no objection to hatch¬ 
eries as an adjunct to nature, but am strongly 
opposed to them being used as an excuse for 
superseding nature and abolishing close seasons. 
Even from a business basis, is it wise to incur 
the expense of building and operating hatcheries 
instead of allowing the fish to attend to the 
matter of reproduction more effectively and cer¬ 
tainly less costly. I realize that there has been 
much guess work as to the relative proportion 
of fry produced by the two systems. Advocates 
of hatcheries have made the absurd statements 
that 95 per cent, of the eggs taken from the fish 
to the hatcheries produce fry, and that only 5 
per cent, of those deposited by the fish in the 
most favorable and suitable spawning grounds 
and waters do so. While the former statement 
may be correct, the latter is too absurd even to 
be considered. I have been paying considerable 
attention to this restocking from the hatcheries 
for many years. I have seen the fry dumped 
into foul, putrid water at outlets of sewers year 
after year, miles away from pure water and the 
spawning grounds or beds of the fish working 
out nature’s plan. I have known of large ship¬ 
ments of fry placed in shallow waters near the 
shores of our large lakes and in a few hours 
washed ashore all dead. Similar causes may 
be the result of the unsatisfactory condition of 
the fisheries in polluted waters in the vicinity of 
the large cities on the American side of our 
large lakes. 
