SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
233
'
_
captcmdum.
If it were openly stated that such advice Was
given solely to permit the liners to have the freedom of the
inshore_waters without molestation, then it could be under—
'
stood.
Whatever may be the opinion on this point it is clear -
that a period of ten years affords certain important data,
especially in conjunction with previous observations, carefully
.
made and free from any disturbing element; Ample time
has been given for the growth of the various shes, from the
'
egg to the adult state.
The conclusion here drawn (and the accompanyiiig tables
_
'
will be useful in arriving at an opinion) differs from that in —
'
the Fishery Board Reports.
More especially does this differ_
ence
affect the statement that “it appears to be fairly well
proved that there has been a diminution of the more important
«
at shes in the closed waters, instead of an increase, as was
.
_
anticipated, and that this may probably be traced to the
_
inuence of beam—trawling in the open waters where the shes
_
spawn.”
The remarks former-ly made will show that a mere
.
minute analysis of the statistics leads to a different conclusion
and one more
in harmony with experience. ‘
_
It is admitted indeed in the Blue-book that no very marked
.
'
'
change has taken place in the abundance of the food—shes in
_
the areas since the prohibition of t1‘awling, yet the plaiceîa;nd
lemon-dab ar‘e brought forward to support the view that a
“falling off” has occurred. It is the last earthwork in the
,
'
defence, and seeing that the conditions of the two periods are
-
dissimilar, it lacks that reliability which is indispensable in
_
matters
so
important. It
has already been dealt with on
._
,
pp. 125—128, and it need only be pointed out here that, by“ an
it is stated1 that the information concerning the
»
spawning—grounds of the plaice and lemôn—dab was due
'
work of the “ Garland,” but long before the experiments had
[
'
com—mencedthe spawning—places of
both had been determined,
the work for the Trawling Commissi0n
in
-
‘
_
(The efcacy of a 3_ Or &. 1'3—inile limit inpromoting the
—
increase of the food-shes is ”opento doubt.,
In the rst place
the" foodshesfollow no hard and faStline of distribution
so as
_.
.
_i
,.
Re107't ,5'. RB,, p. 12, and subsequentlyÿ
'
233
'
_
captcmdum.
If it were openly stated that such advice Was
given solely to permit the liners to have the freedom of the
inshore_waters without molestation, then it could be under—
'
stood.
Whatever may be the opinion on this point it is clear -
that a period of ten years affords certain important data,
especially in conjunction with previous observations, carefully
.
made and free from any disturbing element; Ample time
has been given for the growth of the various shes, from the
'
egg to the adult state.
The conclusion here drawn (and the accompanyiiig tables
_
'
will be useful in arriving at an opinion) differs from that in —
'
the Fishery Board Reports.
More especially does this differ_
ence
affect the statement that “it appears to be fairly well
proved that there has been a diminution of the more important
«
at shes in the closed waters, instead of an increase, as was
.
_
anticipated, and that this may probably be traced to the
_
inuence of beam—trawling in the open waters where the shes
_
spawn.”
The remarks former-ly made will show that a mere
.
minute analysis of the statistics leads to a different conclusion
and one more
in harmony with experience. ‘
_
It is admitted indeed in the Blue-book that no very marked
.
'
'
change has taken place in the abundance of the food—shes in
_
the areas since the prohibition of t1‘awling, yet the plaiceîa;nd
lemon-dab ar‘e brought forward to support the view that a
“falling off” has occurred. It is the last earthwork in the
,
'
defence, and seeing that the conditions of the two periods are
-
dissimilar, it lacks that reliability which is indispensable in
_
matters
so
important. It
has already been dealt with on
._
,
pp. 125—128, and it need only be pointed out here that, by“ an
it is stated1 that the information concerning the
»
spawning—grounds of the plaice and lemôn—dab was due
'
work of the “ Garland,” but long before the experiments had
[
'
com—mencedthe spawning—places of
both had been determined,
the work for the Trawling Commissi0n
in
-
‘
_
(The efcacy of a 3_ Or &. 1'3—inile limit inpromoting the
—
increase of the food-shes is ”opento doubt.,
In the rst place
the" foodshesfollow no hard and faStline of distribution
so as
_.
.
_i
,.
Re107't ,5'. RB,, p. 12, and subsequentlyÿ
'