ject or not, has something to say about it, perhaps a practical fisherman may be allowed by the editor of Once a Week a brief space for a few pertinent remarks.
In the first place, then, I unhesitatingly aver that a great deal of nonsense is talked by the opponents of the “trawl-net” with regard to the damage done to spawning-beds by that peculiar species of apparatus. The “trawl” does not and can not make much havoc with the spawn of fish, for the very simple reason that on the rocky grounds where most fish spawn the “trawl” could not be used without being torn to pieces. I have explained, in a previous paper[1] that the “trawl-net” can only be used on a smooth bottom. Now sea-fish do not spawn, as a rule, on sandy bottoms, since, in such places, there would be no protection for the spawn in the interval between its deposit by the mother-fish and the appearance of the young fry. Hence all who really know anything of the matter know that the great destruction of the spawn-beds ascribed to the “trawl-net” is simply an impossibility. That the “trawl” does much harm by taking all sorts of immature fish and young fry is a fact which I, for one, do not pretend or wish to deny; but this might easily be remedied by an Act of Parliament to regulate the size of the mesh of the trawl-net. Those who advocate the abolition of the trawl-net must be prepared to satisfy all Londoners for their deprivation of the sole, seeing that that fish is rarely, if ever, taken in any other way than by means of the trawl-net.
In my opinion—and it is one which very many sound judges hold—the real cause of the falling off in our sea-fisheries is the non-observance of proper seasons for taking certain fish. Who, for instance, will wonder that the supply of mackerel should fall short when we destroy the breeding-fish by millions when heavy in roe? We have regular fence-months for our salmon and freshwater-fish, yet our sea-fish are taken at all times, and seasons, and (as in the case of mackerel and herrings) the breeding fish are preserved for the market because the public will have “full-roed fish.” I have watched the working of the trawl-net for many years, and it appears to me preposterous to charge that apparatus with destroying spawn-beds, amongst which it cannot possibly be used, whilst at the same time its detractors are encouraging the destruction of fish in full roe, containing each from 300,000 to 500,000 ova. There is an old and homely saying that it is well to “put the saddle on the right horse,” and, as a fisherman myself of long experience, I do not feel disposed to allow the “trawl” to be condemned without a word in its favour. It will be asked me, “Does the ‘trawl’ do no harm, then?” To this I reply “Most unquestionably, but not by disturbing the spawn-beds.” That is a conclusion to which only those ignorant of the method of using the net could possibly come. It is because it destroys heaps of young fry, small soles, plaice, &c., &c., a few inches only in length, that the trawl must be condemned as mischievous.
What, then, is the remedy? Clearly to regulate the size of the mesh by law. To inflict a penalty on those taking fish under a certain size, and above all, not to permit the wholesale capture of spawning fish. Our rivers would soon become barren were there no regulations for their preservation; and it is by no means surprising that notwithstanding the supposed inexhaustibility of our seas, the want of proper rules and regulations should be beginning to tell on the supply of fish. Let me bring this a little nearer home to the readers of this paper. The annual value of fish sold in Billingsgate alone is nearly 4,000,000l., or from 200 to 300 tons weight of fish sold daily. Supposing only one quarter of this amount to be spawning fish (which is very far under the mark), we have from fifty to sixty tons of brood-fish sold daily in one market alone. Each of these fish, if mackerel or herrings, will contain from 300,000 to 500,000 ova; if soles, about 100,000; and if codfish, an average of half a million each. The remedy for this wholesale destruction of an element of future food, is surely the prohibition to take any class of fish during its own peculiar breeding season. I do not intend to lengthen this paper or to say more concerning the great injustice done to the trawl-net. I have merely placed a few significant facts before the readers of Once a Week, and I will leave them to draw their own inferences as to the relative destruction of fish caused by the much-belied trawl-net and that caused by the want of proper and reasonable regulations for our sea-fisheries. The only cure for the existing evil is to extend to our sea-fish that protection which is afforded at spawning time to the fish in all our fresh waters.
TO THE SWALLOW.
Swallow, cruel swallow! wherefore dost thou come
Glancing in the sunlight, by the gleaming river,
Year after year, unto thy northern home,
While youth and love are leaving us for ever?
Cruel swallow, calling up the memories
Of happy years, of what can never be,—
Of friends departed, gone beyond the seas,
And faëry days of childhood I never more shall see!
And boyhood’s happy hours, all bright and golden,
And love’s young dream in halcyon days of yore,
Beside a gleaming river, in summer days of olden,
Like a band of early blossoms, gone for evermore!
Glancing in the sunlight, every springtime coming
Thou must be some spirit, set for ever free,
When the yellow bees are in the meadows humming,
And the golden sunlight floods the earth and sea.
Oh! joyous swallow, gliding on careless wing,
Happy as the summer hours gone for ever by,
Come not, come not back again with the gentle Spring;
Stay within thy southern home, beneath thy southern sky.
For youth and friends can never come again;
And love, if gone, ’tis gone, alas, for ever!
Call not up the memories thou can’st not lull to sleep,
Gliding in the sunlight by the gleaming river.
