Pearls & Parasites

by Sir A. E. Shipley

It seems to have been too readily assumed, however, that this increasing destruction of small plaice is the great cause of the declining catches of better fish. Has the cart not been put before the horse? In view of what has been said above concerning the general severity of the fishing, does it not look as though the capture of increasing quantities of small plaice were a consequence, and not the cause, of the general depletion of the grounds? The people demand plaice. The proprietor of a large fried-fish shop in the East End was a witness before the House of Lords Committee on the Sea-Fisheries Bill of 1904. His customers numbered from 500 to 3,000 daily; and there were 2,000 other establishments of the same kind in London. He told the Committee: ‘Plaice is the most popular fish in our line of business; people do not care for any other.’ Owing to the higher price of plaice, however, he was often compelled to substitute cheaper kinds of fish. In one month he had even made five purchases of small turbot and brill, against only two of plaice, in order to meet the demand. ‘You must understand,’ he added, ‘that amongst the class of people we deal with we do not sell turbot and brill as turbot and brill; we have to sell it as plaice. Plenty of people, if you said you had turbots, would not have them.’ It is obvious that fishermen would not land small plaice if large were plentiful. It was not until the large fish became scarce that fishermen began to take the small.

If these facts are correctly stated, the remedial treatment of the undersized-plaice problem must be taken up from a new standpoint. We must apparently give up the expectation that by merely stopping the destruction of small plaice we shall replenish the sea. The fishing seems to be too severe for that. Every autumn our trawlers fish the waters between the Dogger and the eastern grounds, confident that they will take a good catch of medium-sized plaice averaging 12 to 15 inches in length. These are fish which no fisherman in these days would despise. Though mixed with a considerable proportion of still smaller fish, no possible size-limit will prevent him from reaping this annual harvest. These fish, as has now been shown by the North Sea experiments, are undertaking their first migration from the coastal grounds to the deeper waters. However much we protect the still smaller fish inshore, this wall of nets will be interposed every autumn between the shore and the open sea. The greater the benefits of protection inshore, the denser will be the barrier confronting the fish outside, and the smaller the chances of escape.

To this must be added a new disturbing element, mentioned by Dr. Garstang in his evidence before the House of Lords Committee in 1904. It is generally agreed that the only possible form which protection can take is that of a size-limit, below which it shall be illegal to land or sell fish. In the case of steam-trawlers this limit must be high enough to render it unprofitable for the boats to fish on grounds where the small plaice are most abundant, since the majority of undersized fish are too much injured in the process of capture to be capable of survival if returned to the sea. It is otherwise with the small local sailing-boats (whether Danish, German, or Dutch) which are accustomed to fish on the small-fish grounds. These boats catch the fish alive and throw the undersized fish overboard in a living condition. As they can operate nowhere else, it may be taken for granted that the Governments of their respective countries, however anxious they may be to improve the fisheries, will scarcely consent to impose such a size-limit as to render it unprofitable for their local boats to fish.

The utmost possible protection of the small plaice would consequently be attained by determining (a) a high size-limit for steam-trawlers, practically debarring them from fishing on the coastal grounds; and (b) the highest size-limit for sailing-boats that would be consistent with the profitable pursuit of their calling. The first pick of the fish would consequently fall to the local boats; and, if protection should result, as it is reasonable to expect, in an increase in the number of plaice on the coastal grounds, there would be every inducement for these local boats to multiply in number, with the laudable object of catching as many as possible of the marketable plaice before they could migrate to the offshore waters. In practice some fish would escape; but, in the absence of any restriction upon the number of local boats, there seems no reason to expect that the number of emigrant plaice would, in the long run, be any greater than at present. Even under existing conditions, the local fishery on the west coast of Denmark has developed from a value of about £40,000 in 1897 to nearly £80,000 in 1904.

If, however, we are right in assuming that a given area of ground can only produce a given weight of fish per annum, it is fairly certain that, under protection, the increased density of the fish inshore will result in a retardation in the average rate of growth, an example of which we have given on a previous page. This must produce one or other of two results: either the small fish will remain longer on the inshore grounds before emigration, or they will emigrate offshore at a smaller size than at present. Judging, therefore, from the evidence available, it seems probable that legislative restrictions on the lines indicated can do little to replenish the offshore fishing-grounds, while such restrictions may lead to a slight, and possibly a substantial, increase in the number of small boats fishing along the coasts affected.

While Great Britain can grudge no benefit to the fisheries of other countries, it is the improvement of the deep-sea fisheries which is the paramount interest of this country. Doubts, it has been said, are resolved by action; but if we have correctly analyzed the complicated factors which affect this problem, we have also shown how essential to right action is the fullest possible knowledge concerning all the factors involved. Grave as the North Sea problem undoubtedly is, it is equally certain that the condition of the fishing industry generally was never more prosperous than at the present time. The figures quoted in an earlier part of this article prove this statement to be no paradox. Interference of some kind, whether by legislation, transplantation, artificial culture, or some combination of all these means, seems ultimately to be inevitable. But, if we are to interfere with the fishing industry more successfully than our predecessors, we should take advantage of the present time of prosperity to increase our knowledge on every side—scientific, statistical, experimental—so as to be able to act with conviction when the whole circumstances are clearer and the adequacy of our proposals is less open to doubt. Moreover, in view of the growing interest of other countries, especially Germany and Holland, in deep-sea trawling, and of the international character of the most critical problems, there can be no two opinions as to the desirability of continuing these investigations on some kind of international basis, a basis which has already been productive of very promising results.

Before turning our attention to the various bodies which administer and investigate the fisheries of England, a short consideration of what is done in the two great countries which have scientifically developed their fisheries may be profitable. In Germany we have the Kiel Commission, and in the United States the Commission of Fish and Fisheries. The Kiel Commission exists for the scientific investigation of the German seas. It was established in 1870 at the suggestion of a German sea-fishery society—an interesting example of the belief which the German layman has in science. It consists of four Kiel professors—Hensen representing physiology, Karl Brandt zoology, Reinke botany, and Krümmel geography—and of Dr. Heincke, director of the biological station on Heligoland. An annual grant of £7,500 is made by the German Government for the maintenance of the laboratories at Kiel, the cost of steamers for investigations, the cost of the handsome reports published under the name of ‘Wissenschaftliche Meeresuntersuchungen,’ and for salaries; of these the five members of the Commission divide but £270 between them. The German Government has also spent considerable sums on the biological station in Heligoland, and make it an annual allowance of about £1,000.

The American Commission, like that of Kiel, is not an administrative body, but concerns itself with the acquisition and application of knowledge concerning fisheries; like it, too, it is independent of official control. It reports directly to Congress. It was established in 1871. Its work is, however, of a more practical kind; besides general scientific investigation, it collects fishery statistics and undertakes commercial fishery inquiries, assists in finding markets, and generally advises the trade and the Legislature when diplomatic action is indicated; finally, it is by far the most energetic fish-breeding institution in the world. Much of its work is concerned with the vast system of inland waters—rivers and lakes—which traverse the Continent. The work has been carried out on a scale unknown elsewhere, and Congress has supported it with ample funds. The appropriation in 1897-1898 exceeded £97,000, of which £41,000 was spent on salaries, £16,000 on scientific investigations and upkeep of steamers, £37,000 on fish-culture (mostly fresh-water), and £3,000 on administration and statistics. Besides this central body, many of the States possess fish commissions of their own. The commissioners control numerous laboratories and fish-hatcheries, two sea-going vessels, and many railway-cars specially designed for the transport of fish-fry.

Space does not permit our dealing with the Scottish and Irish Fishery Boards. The former has existed for a century, and, being independent of departmental control, while enjoying a moderate income and the advice of such zoologists as Goodsir, Allman, Sir John Murray, Cossar Ewart, W. C. McIntosh—who has done more than anyone in the Empire to elucidate the life-histories of marine fishes—and D’Arcy Thompson, together with an able staff, the Fishery Board for Scotland has done much thorough and useful work. The fisheries of Ireland suffered from the economic disturbances which overtook Ireland during the nineteenth century, and reached, perhaps, their lowest ebb in 1890. The industrial revival, with which the name of Sir Horace Plunkett is so indissolubly connected, has included in its scope the Irish fisheries. The fishery branch of the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction receives an annual grant of £10,000, and, under the guidance of the Rev. S. Green and Mr. E. W. L. Holt, is already doing much to promote the fishing of the well-stocked Irish seas.

The English official fishery staff seems to have sprung from the requirements of the Salmon Fishery Act of 1861. To carry out the regulations over fresh-water fisheries recommended by that Act two inspectors were appointed, and these were at first attached to the Home Office; a further Act in 1886 transferred these inspectors to the Board of Trade, and extended their duties so as to include the preparation of annual reports on sea-fisheries. In 1903 another transfer took place; and the inspectors were transferred to the Board of Agriculture, which then became the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries.