SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS.
—
285:
.
'
sheries? ' Are "there any sea—sher—ies which are exhaustible,
and if so, are the cirCumstances of
case such
they can
be efciently protected? I believe that it may be aŒrmed
with Condence that, in relation to our present mode of shing,
'…;
'
a number of the most important sea-sheries, such as the cod ‘
…
shery, the herring shery, and the mackerel shery, are in— °
exhaustible.
And 1 base this conviction on two grounds, rst, '
that the multitude of these sheS is so moonceivably great that
the number we catch is relatively insignicant'; and, secondly,
_
that the magnitude of the destructive agencies at work upon
them is so prodigieus, that the destruction e’ected by the
'
sherman cannot sensibly increase the death—rate ”’...“ I believe,
'
then, that the cod shery, the herring shery, the pilchard … -‘
1
shery, the mackerel shery, and probably all
great sea—
,
'
sheries, are inexhaustible ; that is to say that nothing we do
_
seriouslÿ affects the number of the sh. And any attempt
f
‘
regulate these sheries seems consequently, from the naturé,@£ …
-__
the Case, to be useless.”
_
_
"
Dr Brown Gloode1 again, whose knowledge of the
the United States was extensive, states that “theconcluslons
gained— by Prof. Baird, the head of the American FisheriesStaf'f,
tally exactly with these of Prof. Huxley,”that the numberof
.—
any one kind of oceanic sh killed by man is
cant When compared with the” destruction effected by
natural enemies.”
He observes “of shes desertingor
to particular coasts,
“ their movements are no «more to be
*pated than those of ‘ the atmosphere ; ‘_ahd‘, in many
w1th no intelligible cause, some of the m0.st abundant spooleS,
the blue sh, the chub ma'ckerel, the little tunny, thescuppang,
and the bonito, have absented themselves for; conSIderablepe—
mods of. years.” The late
whoseeXpeuence
111 shery legislation and of -shermeïl. was
Wlth Prof- Huxley: He—-pôited
P…wular years
duung1°gæeS°ermEX&mP1@S°f
—
285:
.
'
sheries? ' Are "there any sea—sher—ies which are exhaustible,
and if so, are the cirCumstances of
case such
they can
be efciently protected? I believe that it may be aŒrmed
with Condence that, in relation to our present mode of shing,
'…;
'
a number of the most important sea-sheries, such as the cod ‘
…
shery, the herring shery, and the mackerel shery, are in— °
exhaustible.
And 1 base this conviction on two grounds, rst, '
that the multitude of these sheS is so moonceivably great that
the number we catch is relatively insignicant'; and, secondly,
_
that the magnitude of the destructive agencies at work upon
them is so prodigieus, that the destruction e’ected by the
'
sherman cannot sensibly increase the death—rate ”’...“ I believe,
'
then, that the cod shery, the herring shery, the pilchard … -‘
1
shery, the mackerel shery, and probably all
great sea—
,
'
sheries, are inexhaustible ; that is to say that nothing we do
_
seriouslÿ affects the number of the sh. And any attempt
f
‘
regulate these sheries seems consequently, from the naturé,@£ …
-__
the Case, to be useless.”
_
_
"
Dr Brown Gloode1 again, whose knowledge of the
the United States was extensive, states that “theconcluslons
gained— by Prof. Baird, the head of the American FisheriesStaf'f,
tally exactly with these of Prof. Huxley,”that the numberof
.—
any one kind of oceanic sh killed by man is
cant When compared with the” destruction effected by
natural enemies.”
He observes “of shes desertingor
to particular coasts,
“ their movements are no «more to be
*pated than those of ‘ the atmosphere ; ‘_ahd‘, in many
w1th no intelligible cause, some of the m0.st abundant spooleS,
the blue sh, the chub ma'ckerel, the little tunny, thescuppang,
and the bonito, have absented themselves for; conSIderablepe—
mods of. years.” The late
whoseeXpeuence
111 shery legislation and of -shermeïl. was
Wlth Prof- Huxley: He—-pôited
P…wular years
duung1°gæeS°ermEX&mP1@S°f