_
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS.
7219
much What it '
was
previ0usly, and certainly has" not been
improved to any noteworthy extent by the closure, With
regard to the allegation that frequent trawling on a line (and
it would be interesting to know where this line can be so,
aocurately kept) rapidly exhausts the shes, it is only necessary
to point to the statement on p. 99, where it is shown that the
shing—boats of St Andrews from the rst introduction
the
method to the last day of it found that their riChest trawling—
line was always the same, 'viz., Scdoniehill in a line
the
steeples.
‘
'
The Frith of ”Forth sho‘wed no increase either in number—s 01
size in its sh-fauna, but remained at the end of the
ments very much what it was at the beginning.
has not increased the food-shes, nor has it added much to
the—— oontentment of the liners, who, it may be, have not
'
appreciated their advantages. .It is here and there asse1ted
that it is useless to shoot lines in — the Forth, ag. in the
neighbourhood of the towns of the east, as all the haddocksÏ?
have disappeared.
the “ Garland’s ’Ï work pro'ves that,
Within easy reach of the coast towns fair captures of haddOcks
;Ï
_.
: canmade,
and
by energy and peiseverance,
.
might be considerably augmented.
Moreover, while such
_
is the case, it
'
is also a fact that during the slack period of
'
haddock—shing a man. and two boys may occèæsionally, ini a
_
single “night, secure 559 in herring—'shing. P01iticians, an1mated
.by a desire to benet the liners by upholding the closu1eto
the three—mile limit, and by extending
it if “pOSSÜJ‘Ï‘G tothe
13—mile limit, might pa”use in their efforts
if they—.— were awale
that it is a moot—POînt With some ÏÎD_GFS Whethellüwould
.
three—mile limit, and
êÏÏ$”Ï
‘
sea.
N
great Weight,
attachedt05uch
but they -ShOW.*ïthe uneeltamtÿadumeStWhmh
be chronic in::' the depaümentandWhmhdomt
seem to have been imerV—sdèfbiy themeth°dssmeümæ
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS.
7219
much What it '
was
previ0usly, and certainly has" not been
improved to any noteworthy extent by the closure, With
regard to the allegation that frequent trawling on a line (and
it would be interesting to know where this line can be so,
aocurately kept) rapidly exhausts the shes, it is only necessary
to point to the statement on p. 99, where it is shown that the
shing—boats of St Andrews from the rst introduction
the
method to the last day of it found that their riChest trawling—
line was always the same, 'viz., Scdoniehill in a line
the
steeples.
‘
'
The Frith of ”Forth sho‘wed no increase either in number—s 01
size in its sh-fauna, but remained at the end of the
ments very much what it was at the beginning.
has not increased the food-shes, nor has it added much to
the—— oontentment of the liners, who, it may be, have not
'
appreciated their advantages. .It is here and there asse1ted
that it is useless to shoot lines in — the Forth, ag. in the
neighbourhood of the towns of the east, as all the haddocksÏ?
have disappeared.
the “ Garland’s ’Ï work pro'ves that,
Within easy reach of the coast towns fair captures of haddOcks
;Ï
_.
: canmade,
and
by energy and peiseverance,
.
might be considerably augmented.
Moreover, while such
_
is the case, it
'
is also a fact that during the slack period of
'
haddock—shing a man. and two boys may occèæsionally, ini a
_
single “night, secure 559 in herring—'shing. P01iticians, an1mated
.by a desire to benet the liners by upholding the closu1eto
the three—mile limit, and by extending
it if “pOSSÜJ‘Ï‘G tothe
13—mile limit, might pa”use in their efforts
if they—.— were awale
that it is a moot—POînt With some ÏÎD_GFS Whethellüwould
.
three—mile limit, and
êÏÏ$”Ï
‘
sea.
N
great Weight,
attachedt05uch
but they -ShOW.*ïthe uneeltamtÿadumeStWhmh
be chronic in::' the depaümentandWhmhdomt
seem to have been imerV—sdèfbiy themeth°dssmeümæ