SH 351
.D6 U6
1914

Copy i

63D CoNGRESS, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. Report
2d Session. No. 780.

PREDACEOUS FISHES AND AQUATIC ANIMALS.

' June 8, 1914.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the

Union and ordered to be printed.

es F
s Es
sd ° 6 eee, PPS etek

‘Mr. Hinps, from the Committee on the Merchant Marine and Fish-

eries, submitted the following

REPORT.

[To accompany H. R. 16477.]

The Committee on the Merchant Marine and Fisheries, having had
under consideration the bill (H. R. 16477), a bill to conduct investiga-
tions and experiments for ameliorating the damage wrought by the
fisheries by predaceous fishes and aquatic animals, report the same
back with the recommendation thet the bill be amended as follows
and as amended it do pass.

Amendment.—After ‘‘act’’ in line 13, page 2, strike out the period
and insert the following: “Provided, That the said sum shall not ex-
ceed $15,000 in any fiscal year.”’

In addition to the bill which is herewith reported, your committee
has had before it the bill H. R. 4854, which proposes a bounty on
dogfish, that fish being the most troublesome of the predaceous fishes.
New England waters have especially been troubled by the dogfish.
For the past 10 years bills have been presented before this committee
and several devices have been proposed to rid the sea of these fish,
but hitherto no effective method has been found. The method which
is proposed in the pending bill (H. R. 16477) embodies the result of
long study by the scientists in the Bureau of Fisheries and has the
cooperation of the Department of Commerce, the Secretary having
reported as follows in relation to the bill:

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE,
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY,
Washington, May 20, 1914.
My Dear Coneressman: I acknowledge the receipt of your letter of May 15

inclosing, for an expression of opinion, House bill 16477, ‘‘A bill to conduct investi-
gations and experiments for ameliorating the damage wrought to the fisheries by pre-
daceous fishes and other aquatic animals.’’ As several other bills recently introduced
for the same general purpose have appeared impracticable or otherwise unsatisfactory,

it seems advisable that the department should express its views on the general subject
of protecting the fisheries from predaceous animals, and more particularly at present
from the dogfishes.

Eat
bo
9 VVIt

PREDACEOUS FISHES AND AQUATIC ANIMALS.

The dogfishes are small sharks which congregate in schools, and there are two species
common on the Atlantic coast, the spiny dogfish found north of Cape Cod, and the

smooth dogfish occurring in a more southerly habitat. These differ more or less in ~

habits, but are alike in being great nuisances on account of their practice of eating
baits and seizing the food fish caught on lines and in nets. It is not believed by
the department that they destroy very considerable numbers of free fish—that is,
those which are uninjured or untrammeled by nets. The food of the smooth dogfish
consists mainly of bottom animals, mussels, scallops, sea snails, crabs, starfishes, etc.,
and it also, unlike the spiny dogfish whose food is less known, in certain places and
at certain seasons destroys considerable numbers of lobsters. The stomachs of both
species often contain food fishes and fragments of fishes, but there is good reason to
believe that they come principally from lines and nets. |

The fishermen justly regard these small sharks with strong disfavor as sources of
annoyance and of very considerable loss to the fisheries, and in many places fishing
has to be abandoned when the dogfishes appear. The fishermen, especially those
of Maine, have asked for reliefand have actively advocated two types of measures—
‘one frankly offering a bounty for each dogfish taken, and the other in effect doing
the same thing by providing for the purchase of dogfishes at a fixed price at a large
number of fertilizer factories to be established along the coast by the United States
Government. The department, in reporting on House bill 4854 under date of April
21, 1914, has expressed to your committee its views in respect to bounties, and it is
unnecessary to enter into a discussion of the proposition further than to say that the

expense involved would be heavy and would be borne principally by that part of

the population which has little or no interest in the matter, that it would result in
the establishment of a precedent which would be invoked in respect to measures for
the destruction of other noxious animals, and that it would result in the waste of
material of considerable potential economic value. The proposal for the establish-
ment of Government reduction works for utilizing the dogfish for the manufacture
of fertilizer and oil seems more plausible, as it requires the use rather than the waste
of the fishes caught; but an analysis of the project shows it to be economicaaly im-
practicable and in essence the payment of a bounty under cover. If the bill drawn
by the proponents of the measure were to be given full effect it would probably cost
the Government as much as would the straight bounty.

One of the provisions of a measure introduced at the instance of some of the fisher-
men of Maine is that the fertilizer produced by the proposed Government factories
is to be sold to the farmersatcost. This, quite naturally, looks attractive to the farmers
as a blow at the high cost of farming, but it is doubtful if they would give the measure
very enthusiastic support if they were to be compelled to buy the product on the terms
stated. The official reports of the Canadian Government dogfish reduction works
show that 1 ton of dogfish will produce about 250 pounds of scrap, and for the produc-

‘tion of 1 ton of fertilizer there would be required about 8 tons of raw dogfish, which
at $8 per ton, as provided in the bills introduced in Congress, would make the cost of
raw material about $64. Making due allowance for the value of oil extracted, the
product of the proposed plants could not be sold for less than about $40 per ton, even if
the Government were to donate the plants, and all labor, fuel, and other expenses of
operation. If these expenses could be kept as low per ton of material used as in the
commercial factories using the more readily handled menhaden, and with an allow-
ance of but 10 percent for depreciation, repairs, and interest on the cost of the plants,
it would cost about $70 to produce a ton of fertilizer which the farmer can purchase
in the open market for about half that much. There are other objections to the
Government engaging in the manufacture of fertilizer which it is unnecessary to point
out to your committee.

While the department is opposed to these measures on account of their impractica-
bility and economic unsoundness, it 1s in sympathy with their purpose and it believes
that H. R. 16477, on which you now ask an opinion, affords an opportunity to attack
the problems involved and in the course of time to solve them in a manner to afford
relief to the fishermen and benefit to the people asa whole. The belief is entertained
that the proper method of procedure is not to exterminate the dogfish by indiscriminate

destruction, but to convert a nuisance into an economically useful product and a source °

of profit. It is believed that the only way in which this can be accomplished is to

induce the utilization of this pest as food... Although this has been scoffed at by those »

who would be the first and principal beneficiaries, the project is practical and eco-
nomically sound. The dogfish is not eaten in the United Statessolely on account of
prejudice. Itis palatable and nutritious, and its food is but little different from that
of the haddock and other valued food fishes. It is extensively eaten in Europe, and
during the past few years it has grown in favor in England, where 5,500,000 pounds,
with a value to the fishermen of $80,000, were marketed in 1912. This large and in-

Dy @F 9.

MO Laas
FUR ‘to JES

‘i

3
Q

NS

pot,

PREDACEOUS FISHES AND AQUATIC ANIMALS. 3

NS
creasing production of a cheap and excellent food isa boon to the people at large, while

the fishermen receive about $28 per ton for their catch as against $8 which they would
receive if the Government were to engage in the unprofitable production of fertilizer
under the conditions recently proposed in this country.

To introduce the dogfish or any other unutilized fish into consumption in the face of
general prejudice and ignorance of its qualities, and the lukewarn interest of the
fishermen themselves, will require time and a well-considered practical campaign.
It will involve demonstrations and publicity to acquaint the people with the quali-
ties of the fishes and the methods of cooking and preparing them and marketing
experiments on a commercial scale. H.R. 16477 appears to give authority for effec-
tive work of this character and moreover it makes it possible to extend it not only
to the dogfish, but to other marine pests of equal or greater destructiveness. The
department regards the bill as a piece of valuable construciive legislation, and urges
that your comm‘ttee give it favorable consideration and that you pressits enactment.

- Very truly, yours,
Wiuiam C. REDFIELD, Secretary.

Hon. J. W. ALEXANDER,

Chairman Committee on the Merchant Marine and Fisheries,
House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.

In addition to the facts which are found in the report of the Sec-
retary of Commerce, the scientists at the Bureau of Fisheries give
some interesting facts in regard to the subject:

The dogfishes are little sharks, weighing, when adult, from 5 to 15 pounds. They
get their popular name from their habit of traveling in large schools or packs like dogs

- or wolves, and their chief present interest to the fishermen arises from their predaceous

habit and ravenous appetites. They feed sclely on animal food, which they get

’ wherever it is most readily cbtainable, and on the fishing grounds this is usually on

the trawl lines or in the nets of the fishermen.

Trawl lines are long stout lines to which shorter lines, each with a hook, are attached
at intervals of about 6 feet. They are stretched on the bottom, held in place by
suitable anchors, and marked by buoys, and a8 a single dory or fishing boat will! often
fish several thousand hooks, each baited with a piece of herring, alewife, or other fish,
the fishing banks are strewn with food which the dogfish finds acceptable and readily
obtainable. When a school of dogfish appears, they greedily seize these baits and -
either carry them away or are themselves hooked, the result to the fishermen being
essentially the same in either case, for the line, set for merchantable fish, is either
denuded of its lures or is loaded with dogfish for which the fisherman can find no
market. The address and rapacity of these pests is such that when they are on the
banks or along shore in large bodies the baits are seized before the valuable fish can
take them, and the fisherman loses his time, tne labor expended in setting and hauling
his lines, the value of his bait, and all of the other items which enter into the expenses
of the fishery. :

In the case of the gill-net fishery the dogfishes are attracted by the helpless food
fishes enmeshed in the nets, and they either tear them bodily away and devour them
or bite them in two, leaving nothing but the head to show where a valuable fish had
been. Worse than this in some respects is the damage wrought to the nets, the sharp
teeth of the dogfish cutting them like shears and often leaving of the poor fisherman’s
property little but a string of tatters attached to the foot and lead lines.

Under these conditions the fisherman can do nothing to protect himself, and his only

_ recourse to save his property and avoid an utter waste of effort is to abandon the fishery,

often his only source of livelihood, until such time as his enemy has departed. This is
no rare occurrence but a common one on all parts of the New England coast, over a wide
stretch of the Pacific coast as well, and to some extent on the shores of the Middle
Atlantic States. Even the purse seiner fishing at sea will sometimes inadvertently
inclose a school of dogfish and have his net cut and torn to pieces, the pound-net fisher-
man along shore will find his trap filled with dogfish to the exclusion of fish of value,
and lobster pots take dogfish instead of lobsters.

The loss entailed by the destruction of gear and the enforced abandonment of the
fisheries by all classes of fishermen over wide areas amounts to large sums annually.
The Massachusetts Fish and Game Commission states that the observable damage to
the fisheries of that State alone can be conservatively estimated at not less than
$400,000 per year, and this loss to these immediately concerned must have its reflex in
the increased cost of fish to the consumer. The effects of the dogfish nuisance, there-
fore, are not only observable over a considerable part of the immediate coast line but
are indirectly distributed over the large section of the country depending on the sea

4 PREDACEOUS FISHES AND AQUATIC ANIMALS.

for its supply of fish. Owing to the abundance of the dogfishes, their wide distribu-
tion, their remarkable swimming powers, and their wandering habits, which carry
them over broad expanses of the seas in which they live, it is probable that but little
can be done toward the material reduction of their numbers. A school marauding on
the coast one week may be far away the next and its place may be occupied by another
host that has come from an unknown distance in the open sea. If they can not be
exterminated, the only economic solution of the problem which they present is that
they should be utilized and the curse of their presence converted into a blessing.
This can be done only in accord with sound economic principles. A bounty, aside
from other objectionable features, merely distributes the loss and can have no other
effect. It acts like a system of fire insurance with no provision for preventing fires or
minimizing their destructiveness. The loss still exists, but its burden is borne by a
larger number of persons.

Leaving out of consideration certain secondary or subsidiary uses, principally of
waste parts, fishes are economically utilized for fertilizer and for food. For the first
purpose they must be cheap as compared with other species which are abundant, in
fairly regular supply, easily caught and easily handled. If the dogfish be economically
available for the manufacture of fertilizer it will be utilized by factories privately
owned and always on the watch for a supply of suitable and cheap raw material. There
is no doubt that fertilizer of good quality can be produced from dogfish, the only
question being whether the fish can be obtained at a price low enough to show a
profit on operations. If they can not be profitably used by private works, there is no
reason to suppose that they can be by those under Government control.

The value of the fish will be governed competitively with other fishes and if the
price be arbitrarily fixed too low the fishermen will not supply the fish, and if too

igh, as in bills proposed for the establishment of Government reduction works, there
will be an operating loss and the excess price of raw material will be in effect a bounty
to the fishermen.

None but the cheapest fish will be used for fertilizer, and considering the heavy
wear and tear on gear involved in taking dogfish, it is doubtful if they can be taken
profitably except for food and that appears to be the only means by which they may
be converted from a nuisance into an economic product. That they are not at present
eaten in the United States is no justification for the belief that they can not be intro-
duced into the national diet. There are numerous instances of despised fishes and
other aquatic animals attaining high favor after their qualities became known. Within
a comparatively recent time the sturgeon, especially in the Great Lakes, was rezarded
as a nuisance and ruthlessly destroyed, but to-day a single large female fish may sell
for as much as $150. The silver hake of the New England coast was formerly wholly
unutilized but is gradually coming into the markets; the catfishes are becoming high-
priced fishes, and frogs are regarded as a delicacy, and the subject of frog farms is
exciting interest as a source of profit. Instances might be multiplied.

The failure to eat dogfish in the United States appears to be due to prejudice against
them rather than to any lack of nutritiousness or palatability. Thereare two species of
dogfishes on the Atlantic coast, the spined or horned dogfish, which has the more northern
range, and the smooth dogfish, which is generally more abundant south of Cape Cod.
These differ somewhat in the character of their flesh, the spined species being more
oily and resembling in composition the medium grades of salmon. This fish is well
suited for canning. The smooth dogfish is drier and when used fresh its flavor and
qualities have been likened to those of halibut and swordfish. Neither of these fish
has objectionable or unclean feeding habits, one feeding on organisms similar to jelly —
fishes and possibly on true fishes, and the other on crabs, starfish, and other bottom-
dwelling animals. Both, so far as food is concerned, resemble other fishes highly
esteemed on the table. Their flesh is white and in external appearance they are
not repulsive; their skins secrete little mucous and they never look slimy like cod and
haddock when massed in the holds of vessels. They are eaten extensively in various
parts of Europe. In Norway and Sweden they are used both fresh and salted or dried.
In England, where there was formerly the same prejudice existing in the United
States, the spined dogfish has emerged from its odium and is gradually assuming a po-
sition of importance as a food fish, about five and one-half million pounds being used ~
in 1912. In the fried fish shops it masquerades and is readily eaten as plaice, one of
the most popular of English fishes, thus demonstrating that the elimination of prejudice
against it is a prime factor in its introduction into consumption.

Certain secondary products of the dogfish could probably find a market if the value
of its flesh could be established. The liver is rich in oil, having most of the qualities of
cod-liver oil; its skin makes an attractive leather, and is unsurpassed abrasive for fine
wood and ivory workers, and the fins are righ in gelatine. All of these utilities should
be convertible into profit and if they can be availed of on a commercial scale the dog-

PREDACEOUS FISHES AND AQUATIC ANIMALS. 5

em Deoakd be solved to the satisfaction of both fishermen and the consuming
a heavy annual industrial loss would be converted into a profit.

intended to provide authority and means for the attempted attainment
ds by inducing the consumer to recognize the qualities of the dogfish and
e fishery products and in educating the fishermen to prepare them and
m in such manner as will conduce to that result. It isa practical measure,
pelieved that it will yield practical results.

O

——
Sy

,

i
ft

IBRARY OF CONGRESS

LON