,
234
'
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS.
,
.
to be amenable to such restrictions.
A species which extends
—
from the shores of Norway to those of America is probably
beyond the inuence of such measures.
were
most ex,amples‘, say of the haddoek, removed, for the sake of argu—
ment, from the area of the l3—mile limit round the British
shores, we have yet to consider the pelagic eggs given off by
many of the specimens in the spring months, before and
during capture, other eggs swept in by currents from the
more
distant waters, and the hordes of tiny young
which
are beyond the reach of any mode of shing. What perma_
nent inuence can a three or a thirteen-mile limit round the
…
small area of the British Islands have on the almost b0undless
'
ocean
around, an ocean teeming with food from plants to
shes, and harbouring multitudes of the very species we are
.
considering?
,
'
Slowly, therefore, the conclusion has been reached that
the closure of regions of the open sea in a country like
_
Britain presents few advantages worthy of the constant strain
and irritation of class against class, or of the considerablej
annual eäzpenditure. The capture
great numbers of small
shes by either trawlers or liners is a misfortune for the
country, but the closure is powerless to prevent it. Yet so far
as
history, and so far as observations at the present time. go,
Ÿ
there:is no ground for alarm in regard to the permanence
of the '
food—shes. Those who have watched the s—warms
'
soies and other at shes on the shrimping—grounds of the
_.
have been harassed almost daily for hundreds of
'
Will appreciate the remarks on the permanence of our
,
No. test, indéed, could be more decisive, and none
answers the half—informed outcry about the
‘
dis@Pearance of the haddock from the—Scottish waters; .Norf Ï'.
'
1s theauthor alone in this View.
'
.
_
_
_
June 18, 1888;at
Inaugural'Meeting of the Inter—_ ;
national Fisheries
that “year Pr0Huxley; WhO“.àS
'
&ŸÎ—‘membÉrî Of:
Royal
"
Commissions andÿ,—Inspector
had large
the
‘
arisès
:
the
same
‘
the sea
234
'
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS.
,
.
to be amenable to such restrictions.
A species which extends
—
from the shores of Norway to those of America is probably
beyond the inuence of such measures.
were
most ex,amples‘, say of the haddoek, removed, for the sake of argu—
ment, from the area of the l3—mile limit round the British
shores, we have yet to consider the pelagic eggs given off by
many of the specimens in the spring months, before and
during capture, other eggs swept in by currents from the
more
distant waters, and the hordes of tiny young
which
are beyond the reach of any mode of shing. What perma_
nent inuence can a three or a thirteen-mile limit round the
…
small area of the British Islands have on the almost b0undless
'
ocean
around, an ocean teeming with food from plants to
shes, and harbouring multitudes of the very species we are
.
considering?
,
'
Slowly, therefore, the conclusion has been reached that
the closure of regions of the open sea in a country like
_
Britain presents few advantages worthy of the constant strain
and irritation of class against class, or of the considerablej
annual eäzpenditure. The capture
great numbers of small
shes by either trawlers or liners is a misfortune for the
country, but the closure is powerless to prevent it. Yet so far
as
history, and so far as observations at the present time. go,
Ÿ
there:is no ground for alarm in regard to the permanence
of the '
food—shes. Those who have watched the s—warms
'
soies and other at shes on the shrimping—grounds of the
_.
have been harassed almost daily for hundreds of
'
Will appreciate the remarks on the permanence of our
,
No. test, indéed, could be more decisive, and none
answers the half—informed outcry about the
‘
dis@Pearance of the haddock from the—Scottish waters; .Norf Ï'.
'
1s theauthor alone in this View.
'
.
_
_
_
June 18, 1888;at
Inaugural'Meeting of the Inter—_ ;
national Fisheries
that “year Pr0Huxley; WhO“.àS
'
&ŸÎ—‘membÉrî Of:
Royal
"
Commissions andÿ,—Inspector
had large
the
‘
arisès
:
the
same
‘
the sea