1-32
sr ANDREWS BAY.
SUMMARY.
trawl of the same kind as that formerly used by the native
shermen the result might have been different.
Few would be
_
_
prepared to state that because, even with a blank year, the
,
thornbacks were more numerous in the rst period (by 107 to
;
97) they had been affected by any method of shing, just as
they would hesitate to put weight on the fact that the small '
_
'
numbers
of brill were increased
fourfold
and
the
larger
numbers of starry rays doubled by accumulation in the latter
’
period (vide Tables V.—VII.).
The uncertainties and irregularities connected with shing operations are as distinctly seen
in the shes that are less common in the bay, such as the sole,
'
sandy ray, conger, poor cod and wolf—sh, as in the more
abundant forms, some occurring in greater numbers in the rst
period and others in the second.
The greatest caution is
therefore necessary in drawing conclusions from such data. If
'
they show anything more than another it is that the closure of
such areas has no appreciable inuence on the increase or
,
diminution of the shes within their own boundaries or in the
,
neighbouring waters. The problem is too vast to be solved
'
by such pigmy‘ measures.
The closur€—to the three-mile
,
limit—round the shoresof Britain seems to the uninitiated a
great step for the protection of the sea-shes against trawling,
but it is really quite insignicant, in view of the vast extent
.
and unboundéd resources of the ocean, or in its effects on the
—
complex chain of circumstances resulting in the permanent
;
abundance of these shes.
,_