Part 6

Let us examine the first-mentioned cause of impoverishment, the destruction of the ‘accumulated stock.’ This formula has been eagerly adopted by some who hesitate to admit the existence of any form of over-fishing. It implies that a state of equilibrium is possible between the forces of destruction and the forces of repair; that on virgin territory older individuals tend to accumulate beyond what is necessary for the maintenance of the ‘current stock’; and that their removal entails no real injury to the supply. In scientific terms this means that the average age of mature individuals of a natural stock may be reduced by man to a lower point which represents the economic optimum. The Patagonian cannibals seem to have been early converts to the soundness of this theory. The difference between the Patagonian who eats his mother-in-law and the fisherman who destroys the overgrown plaice is that the former’s actions are deliberate and limited, while the removal of the accumulated stock is not so much an object of the fisherman as an unpremeditated consequence of the intensity with which fishing operations tend to be conducted. Does the fisherman abate his operations when the economic optimum has been reached? Clearly not. He fishes till it ceases to pay; and no other motive affects him. It is plainly a question for scientific inquiry whether, in a given case, the fishery has been prosecuted to excess, and has reduced the average age too far, or not.

On this question the International North Sea Investigations have already thrown valuable light, for the study of the intensity of fishing by means of definite experiments with marked fish has formed an important part of the programme; and the investigation of the age of plaice, cod, and other species has been vigorously prosecuted. According to the latest report of the Council of the Marine Biological Association, more than 7,000 marked plaice have been set free by their staff, and 24 per cent. altogether have been recaptured. Of the medium-sized fish which, furnish the best test of the intensity of fishing, 30 per cent. in twelve months have been captured in the southern part of the North Sea, where sailing trawlers predominate, and 40 per cent. on the Dogger Bank and adjacent grounds, where the fishing is done by steam-trawlers. It seems, however, that some of the fish lose their labels before being caught again. A still closer idea of the severity of the fishing may perhaps be got from another experiment with weighted bottles, which were specially devised by Mr. G. P. Bidder to act as indicators of bottom currents, and were thrown overboard from the _Huxley_ in the winter of 1904-1905, in the southward parts of the North Sea. Out of 600 bottles more than 54 per cent. were returned by trawl fishermen within twelve months. If anything like half the adolescent stock of plaice is taken by our trawlers every year on the deep-sea fishing-grounds, the establishment of the fact must profoundly affect our views as to the causes of depletion and the remedies to be applied; for the fishing in these instances seems not to have been on the so-called ‘small-fish’ grounds or nurseries, but in areas which have always been recognized as legitimate fields of work.

The possibility of determining the age of fish is quite a recent discovery, and is based on the observation that the scales, vertebræ, and especially the ‘otoliths’ or ear-stones of fish, show alternate dark and light rings of growth, corresponding with the summer and winter seasons of the year, exactly like the rings in the wood of trees. Many difficult problems are likely to be cleared up by a knowledge of the age of fish on different fishing-grounds; and, to judge from the scale on which this investigation is being pursued, it will not be long before we may expect something in the nature of an age-census. The Council of the Marine Biological Association have reported no less than 12,000 age-determinations of plaice by their North Sea staff up to June last; and the German and Dutch investigators are working on similar lines.

To conclude our argument, we should now examine the question whether it is possible to determine to what extent and in what manner the destruction of immature fish, which is admittedly enormous, is injurious to the permanent supply. We have already referred to Mr. Holt’s statistics, which showed that 40 per cent. of the plaice landed in Grimsby in the year 1893-1894 were below 13 inches in length. In 1904, 30 per cent. of the plaice landed from the North Sea on the whole East Coast were below 11 inches in length. German statistics show that from 1895 to 1904 there was no sensible increase in the total weight of plaice landed in that country, but the proportion of ‘small’ fish (below 14 inches in length) steadily increased from 68 per cent. in 1895 to 87 per cent. in 1904. There can thus be little doubt that the supply is being maintained only by drawing more and more upon the fish of smaller size and of less value.

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.

At present the central staff consists of an assistant secretary and two inspectors, in addition to a body of statistical experts. Their duties are far too numerous for so small a staff. Much of their time is taken up with the comparatively unimportant fresh-water fisheries; and these are the subject of a separate report. Without actually administering the byelaws of the local committees, they exercise a certain supervision over their actions. They have to attend numerous inquiries all over the country, and to prepare annual reports; and they are responsible for the collection of the statistics which have recently assumed so extensive a development. Besides the central authorities at the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, there are local fisheries committees established by an Act of 1888. These committees can be established by the county and borough councils on application to the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, which defines the area over which a committee shall have jurisdiction. One-half of such a committee is chosen by the local councils, and one-half by the central authority. The necessary money is raised by a local rate. A committee may draft byelaws; but these only become operative if confirmed by the Board. These byelaws differ, according to conditions, in different parts of England. They deal largely with restrictions on trawling. No steam-trawler is allowed to trawl within the three-mile limit around the coast of England; even the sailing trawler is forbidden. The byelaws also deal with the sizes of the meshes of nets, shrimping, crabbing, etc.

Neither the central authorities, whose chief function is to administer the law and collect statistics, nor the local committees, whose expenditure is limited to the ‘shell-fisheries’--and, stretch the Act to the breaking point, you still cannot make a flat-fish into a shellfish--have either the time or the money for scientific experiment. This has to a large extent been left to local or private enterprise, and is mainly confined to three centres--the Northumberland coast, the Lancashire and western district, and the Channel and North Sea. The first-named area has recently been supplied by a private benefactor with funds for an efficient laboratory at Cullercoats, from which much useful work may be expected.

It is difficult to disentangle the Lancashire and Western Sea-fishery Committee from Liverpool University on the one hand, and from the Liverpool Marine Biological Committee or Society on the other. The Committee owns a handsome marine station at Port Erin, on the Isle of Man; here and at the fish-hatchery at Peel, in Cumberland, the largest fish-breeding experiments in England are carried out. In 1904, 5,000,000 young plaice were reared and put into the sea from Port Erin alone. The Committee publishes annual reports and a series of ‘Memoirs.’ It is probably to this Committee that the University owes its connexion with the local sea-fisheries authorities. In the laboratories and museums of the University the scientific work of the local districts is carried on by officials paid by the Fisheries Committee; and special rooms in the handsome new zoological department have been assigned to these two organizations. The connecting link between the three bodies is the professor of zoology, Dr. Herdman, who is honorary director of the scientific work, and to whose untiring energy the University and the district owe a large debt. With him work two trained naturalists, Dr. Jenkins, the Superintendent of the District Committee, and Mr. James Johnstone, whose lucid and admirable work is mentioned at the head of this article. From it many of our figures and facts have been taken.

The third and last body occupied with original marine research is the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom. It is the most important of these institutions, and aims at a national rather than a local activity. The fine laboratory which dominates the eastern end of Plymouth Hoe was erected at a cost of £12,000, and opened in 1888. The object of the Association is to ‘promote researches leading to the improvement of zoological and botanical science, and to an increase of our knowledge as regards the food, life-conditions, and habits of British food-fishes and molluscs.’ Although a high average of scientific work has been displayed in the published ‘Memoirs’ connected with the Plymouth laboratory, great attention has also been paid to matters of practical interest. In a list of some 350 papers published, with the aid or under the auspices of the Association, between 1886 and 1900, nearly one-half deal directly with economic problems. From 1892 to 1895 the officers of the Association carried on at Grimsby extensive investigations into the destruction of immature fish; and it is gratifying to find that the Select Committee of 1893 extended its recognition to the ‘facts and statistics’ submitted by the Scotch Fishery Board and by the Association. In the summer of 1902 the Association, at the request of the Government, undertook to carry out the English portion of the International Investigation of the North Sea. The scope of this inquiry is immense; and its importance to the largest fisheries available for our fishermen is incalculable. Some idea of the kind of work accomplished has been furnished in the preceding pages.

What now seems to be most required, in addition to the maintenance of the work already in progress, is a closer co-operation of these various bodies with one another and with the central authority now established under the President of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries. The outlines of some such scheme seem plainly indicated by the existing constitution of these various bodies. The Fisheries Department is responsible for administration, statistics, and general advice to the President of the Board on fishery matters. The Marine Biological Association undertakes general marine investigations of a national as distinct from a local character, as well as such local investigations and experiments as can conveniently be carried out at its laboratories. The Sea-fishery Committees need additional powers to enable them to carry out local scientific investigations more fully in their respective areas. Perhaps an annual conference between the representatives and experts of these bodies and the officials of the Fishery Department, for the express purpose of drawing up plans of work for the ensuing year, would, in the first instance, be the best means of leading up to more intimate co-operation and organization.

The Reports on the North Sea Investigation so far published deal only with the work of the earlier years of the investigations; but already the great prospective value of the results is fully apparent. The Marine Biological Association has carried out the portion of the general scheme entrusted to it with energy and success; and Englishmen have no need to fear comparison with the work done in other countries.

ZEBRAS, HORSES, AND HYBRIDS

_This matchless horse Is the true pearl of every caravan._ SIR F. H. DOYLE.