as the supply of a particular ground is lessened, that ground will be abandoned till it has regained its normal condition. But it does not seem by any means certain that recovery will always ensue in such cases. Several instances – for example, that of the estuary of the Tay – were mentioned in the evidence before the Commissioners, where the productiveness of waters that have been over-fished was said to have never been restored. Moreover, in the present state of the law, that allows unrestricted fishing, no favourably situated ground would enjoy sufficient quiet for complete recovery. Boats would flock there on the first reappearance of fish, and it is quite conceivable that constant attacks of this sort would prevent the ground ever regaining its former productiveness. But even if it is likely that any given area would be left alone till the productiveness of its waters was thoroughly restored, a system of fishing carried on in this way would be of the most wasteful kind. Over-fishing a bank once every two or three years would not yield nearly so much to the markets as a fair annual catch on the same ground. Besides, the hardship to the local fishermen, touched upon above, would be so intensified, that their trade would in all probability disappear, and instead of a regular and equal supply along the whole coast, the fishing would flit from place to place, according to the state of the ground.
As regards the causes, other than over-fishing, that may produce "exhaustion" of a fishing-ground, it is, in the present state of our knowledge, impossible to define their power, or how far their action may be local or general. In the words of the Commissioners –
"It is only reasonable to suppose that the seasons, and perhaps other causes, of which nothing is as yet known, largely influence the supply of fish. There may be good and bad fishing years on the sea, just as there are good and bad harvests on land. And as good and bad harvests frequently come in cycles, good and bad fishing seasons may do the same. We have no statistics for any length of time, except from Scotland, and there only in regard to herring (which fully bear out this view), to enable us to say how far this has been the case hitherto. The recollections of fishermen, extending over a long period of years, are not sufficiently precise to allow any conclusion to be based upon them. And although we consider that the supply of certain kinds of fish, in certain places in the territorial waters, has diminished in recent years, we cannot estimate precisely the degree in which the diminution has taken place. Without accurate statistical information, extending over many years, it is impossible to form any satisfactory opinion upon the point. We are therefore unable to come to the conclusion that trawling is the sole cause of the decrease of fish in inshore waters. In so far as it may contribute to that decrease, we think it can only be as part of a system of over- fishing, and not because of any wasteful destruction of spawn, fish-food, or immature fish."
We must, however, be on our guard, in the presence of such a tangible and manageable cause as "exhaustion" by the operation of man, against imputing too much to the action of natural forces, that may or may not exist. There is always a temptation to exaggerate the unknown; and this human failing is especially tempting, when by adopting it we may escape responsibility. At any rate, the fact of our being unable to gauge unknown influences, should not prevent us from modifying the injurious effect of those that are known, – and of these trawling is undoubtedly the most prominent, though it is quite possible it may not be the only one. It remains, then, to be
