Port Tobacco times, and Charles County advertiser. (Port Tobacco, Md.) 1845-1898, 1871-03-10
COMMUNICATED.


Nh. EDITOR: Had the subject Of fishing
been discussed 10 fair and impartial manner
it would not BE- necessary to say more, but
nearly all the COMMUNICATIONS that have ap-
peared 10 your columns, appear to have been
written by those who are hostile to the gilling
interest, and no doubt look upon those en-
gagged in the business as an ignorant set Of
beings, incapable of writing a line or speak
Jog word in defence of their rights. Hav-
ing had some experience 10 catching fish BY
hauling seine as we'll as gilling, claim to
have some knowledge of the business. l also
happen to own land on the Potomac river.
aud perhaps feel as great an interest in the
preservation Of the breed of fish as your cor
respondent, Consumer. He as we'll as others
who have written on the subject, have failed
to adduee the slightest proof that gillnets have
been the cause of the great decline in the
quantity of fish, Notwithstanding they have
labored bard to do 81 A little reflection will
settle that question Ny unparalleled mind.
It is known to tho liliar with the gilling
business that gil Ipr catching herring
have been in ps@ mac but short
time, apal1 oare compa-
b.
kind Of fish ~ gut herring"
was pretty nearly ed long before her
ring nets were III any extent. Why
were 90 many of til large fisheries, that at
one time occupied evpfy available spot from
the mouth Of Nanjeymoy creek to Fort Wash
ington, on the Maryland shore, to say nothing
of those on the opposite side Of the river, dis
continued Simply because those very seines
had destroyed the fish to such an extent that
the business would not pay long before her,
ring nets came into general use. Shad nets
have been in use much longer time and are
much more numerous; the quantity OF shad
has not declined in proportion to the herring,
which is conclusive proof that gillnets have
not been the cause of the great decrease 10
the quantity of fish.
Your correspondent, Consumer, attempts to
prove that gillnets destroy the spawn OF fish
and that seines do not In this he certainly
evinces degree of ignorance seldom met
with. The writer of this has been accustcm-
ed to fishing gillnets both for herring and
shad with those destructive bottom lines
spoken of, about oue-eighth of an inch 10
diameter, Weighted with leads about one quar-
ter to one half ounce in weight,) for several
years, and has never yet seen the least parti-
Gle of spawn brought up by the lines or web
of any net, nor has he ever heard OF it being
done on that part of the river where he fishes.
If any Of your readers wish to know whether
seines destroy the spawn of fish or not let
them 60 to one Of those landings above Gly-
mont late in the season and see for themselves,
and all doubts on the subject will pretty soon
be removed.
Consumer says something about persons
owning land on the river encouraging men
from a distance to come on the Potomac to
6sh-all for the pelf they get by renting those
men huts to live in during the fishing season.
There may be some such cases, but it is by
no means general, and I am Inclined to think
that Consumer would, if he owned land on
the river, do pretty much as others do and
rent to those who pay best.
Now, Mr.. Editor, allow me to make sug-
gestion as to the best mode of preserving
what remains of the breed of herring and
shad. Get rid of all nonresident fishermen,
if it can be done in lawful way, and stop all
fishing on the Potomac and its tributaries
with either gillnets or seines between the 10th
of May and the last of August in each year,
and the much-needed remedy will be obtain
ed, for it cannot be denied that late fishing 10
the fresh water, where the fish resort to de-
post their spawn, is the cause to very great
degree of the great decrease in the quantity
of fish. CHARLES COUNTY GILLER.
February 27th, 1871.