^All. 
 
 Compliments of the Scripps Institution 
 
 1 p- 
 
 * > P , V! ' *» '. ■ 
 
 Jr ^ o Jn*.i} 
 
 rCR 
 
 li;oL^>SICAL REcEAPC' 
 
 / / Ci? 
 
 MARCH 15, 1918 
 
 No. 5 
 
 BULLETIN 
 
 OF THE 
 
 SCRIPPS INSTITUTION FOR BIOLOGICAL RESEARCH 
 
 OF THE 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA 
 
 THE RESOURCES OF THE NORTH PACIFIC 
 OCEAN: THEIR EXTENT, UTILIZA¬ 
 TION AND CONSERVATION 
 
 BY 
 
 WILLIAM E. RITTER 
 
THE RESOURCES OF THE NORTH PACIFIC 
 OCEAN: THEIR EXTENT, UTILIZA¬ 
 TION AND CONSERVATION 
 
 By william E. RITTER 
 
 1. Introductory statement. 
 
 2. Standpoint of the discussion. 
 
 3. Summary of North Pacific productions already utilized to some 
 
 extent. 
 
 4. Special remarks on the food and a few other resources of the area. 
 
 5. The question of permanence of such resources. 
 
 6. Some typical questions of abundance and conservation. 
 
 7. Is the North Pacific as productive from .the fisheries standpoint as 
 
 the North Atlantic? 
 
 8. Extensive scientific research the only way to answer the above 
 
 question. 
 
 1. INTEODUCTOEY STATEMENT 
 
 In accordance with a recommendation by the Committee on Zoolog¬ 
 ical Investigation of the Pacific Coast Research Conference, working 
 in co-operation with the Committee of Scientific Research of the State 
 Council of Defense of California, the Research Conference adopted 
 the following resolution at its meeting of November 24, 1917: 
 
 Resolution in Regard to Problems op North Pacific 
 
 Whereas, the world-war has brought home to us as never before 
 a realization of the necessity of full and accurate knowledge of our 
 food resources and the necessity of developing and utilizing these 
 resources to the maximum extent compatible with their adequate 
 conservation; and 
 
 Whereas, our knowledge of the fishery resources of the North 
 Pacific is very imperfect and wholly inadequate to serve as a basis 
 for trustworthy conclusions as to the extent and permanence of 
 these resources, or as to what is necessary for their preservation; 
 therefore, be it 
 
 Resolved by the Committee on Zoological Investigations of the 
 Scientific Research Conference of the State Council of Defense of 
 California that the proper department or departments of the 
 United States Government be urged to take such steps as may be 
 necessary to provide for a comprehensive and thorough exploration 
 
 3 
 
of the Pacific with a view to the development, greater utilization, 
 and adequate conservation of its fishery resources of whatever kind, 
 and that, if possible, such exploration be undertaken in co-operation 
 with other governments possessing territory bordering the Pacific 
 Ocean. 
 
 The aim of the paper herewith presented is twofold. It is, first, 
 to give in very general terms certain reflections induced by the author’s 
 contact with the rapidly developing fisheries and kelp industries of 
 the California coast during the last few years, especially since the 
 United States entered the war; and, second, to make such presentation 
 weigh as an argument on behalf of the resolution above quoted. 
 
 I wish to call special attention to the fact that while the paper 
 naturally restricts itself almost entirely to the scientific and economic 
 aspects of the subject, I recognize the legal and political aspects of it, 
 especially as these involve international relations^ to be quite as far 
 reaching in possibilities as are the scientific and economic aspects. 
 
 It is a cherished hope of the writer that what is here said may catch 
 the attention of some one competent to treat the other aspects and that 
 such a treatment will be forthcoming in the near future. 
 
 At no time, probably, in the whole history of the human race have 
 such numbers of it, both as to groups and as to individuals, been 
 brought into such vital relations with one another in so many partic¬ 
 ulars as are involved in the present gigantic struggle at arms. "What 
 will come of it alH 
 
 Is it chimerical to hope that the unifying forces rooted in what is 
 common to the whole race, now so potent among the hundreds of 
 millions of Europeans, Americans and Asiatics at war with the Central 
 Powers, may be carried over to some extent into the post-bellum era 
 as a beneficent legacy of the war? ^ 
 
 The extent fo which science has contributed and is contributing to 
 the incalculable destruction and misery which civilization has brought 
 upon itself is certainly one of the impressive lessons of this conflict. 
 
 But science will have to play as large a part in the period of recon¬ 
 struction which must follow as it is playing in that of destruction 
 which is now upon us. 
 
 The needs and opportunities pointed out and the proposals made 
 in the paper accord with this constructive function of science, and 
 it is earnestly hoped that in the near future, if not just now, the people 
 of the United States, acting through their National Government, will 
 make it possible to carry out some such enterprise as that suggested. 
 
 2. STANDPOINT OF THE DISCUSSION 
 
 The subject is viewed as one small aspect of the general problem of 
 the actual j^hysical needs of civilized man. 
 
 4 
 
The assumption is that civilization will continue to advance, that 
 this will involve the continued growth of populations, and that this 
 growth will necessitate finally a requisitioning of the latent resources 
 of the whole earth to meet the necessities of peoples, as distinguished 
 from their ambitions for gain. 
 
 These assumptions are justified by the facts of history and the 
 nature of man. 
 
 Though healthy advance in civilization by a people whose death 
 rate exceeds or equals its birth rate is conceivable, the history of 
 human culture probably does not furnish an instance of such a thing. 
 Anyway the well nigh universal rule is that peoples showing a vigorous 
 cultui'al growth show also vigorous numerical growth. 
 
 Illustrations are numerous. 
 
 Europe’s population more than doubled during the ninety-year 
 period, 1801 to 1891 (175,000,000 in 1801; 357,000,000 in 1891), prob¬ 
 ably very little of the growth being due to immigration. Besides this 
 addition to her own numbers, the little continent furnished many 
 millions, some 25 or 30 at least, to other continents, particularly to 
 the Americas, Australia and Africa. 
 
 The very countries which have been front and center of the world’s 
 later progress in civilization have been also the swarmers for peopling 
 the earth. But the case of Europe does not stand alone. The most 
 advanced of all Oriental nations, the Japanese, are still more prolific. 
 At present this nation is said to be doubling its population in about 
 fifty, instead of ninety, years. 
 
 Til ere are now undoubted signs that growth in civilization is to 
 some extent a check on fertility, and consequently that such rapid 
 increase of population of civilized countries as has characterized the 
 later centuries will not be kept up. But, on the other hand, the 
 staying of disease, famine, and infanticide, which in the past have 
 been potent in keeping down population, are among the most prized 
 and distinctive marks of progress. And now comes the possibility 
 that the near future will see war, the fourth great check on population, 
 shorn of its truly devastating power. All in all, the conclusion seems 
 unescapable that high and ever higher world civilization implies large 
 and ever larger world population. 
 
 Having regard to these facts of population and to the limited size 
 of the earth, and reflecting that advance in civilization is conditioned 
 on nothing less than ever increasing richness of human life—improv¬ 
 ing physical health, and never ceasing intellectual, moral, esthetic and 
 religious growth—and how avoid recognizing that in the future all 
 economic endeavor and much of political endeavor will have to concern 
 themselves far more positively and directly with the indispensable 
 requisites of the great rank and file of populations than they have in 
 the past ? 
 
 5 
 
There can be no question that the demand for greater world de¬ 
 mocratization, which has become the battle cry for all nations now 
 fighting German autocracy and* miltiarism, is also the watchword of 
 a great forward move in world civilization, and that one element in 
 the success of the movement would be the death knell not only of 
 irresponsible political rule but as well of irresponsible economic ex¬ 
 ploitation. 
 
 The indubitable needs of civilized peoples which in future will be 
 the great inspiration of political action will have to oppose ambition 
 for material wealth hardly less stoutly and vigilantly than it will have 
 to oppose ambition for dynastic and militaristic power. And this will 
 bring a change over nearly the whole of economic theory, purpose and 
 method. 
 
 Among the foremost of these changes one will concern the way the 
 3^et undeveloped resources of nature are viewed. Science under gov¬ 
 ernmental support rather than private industrial enterprise will be¬ 
 come more and more the exploratory agency of latent economic re¬ 
 sources, and developmental projects will be timed and carried out as 
 far as possible in accordance with needs as calculated on scientific 
 rather than wealth-yielding principles. 
 
 Another of the changes will affect the terms in which resources 
 are expressed. These terms will be more and more those of use values 
 rather than of money values. Treatises on industrial production and 
 trade will be more concerned about the articles made and bought and 
 sold, their quantity and uses, and less about their trade prices and 
 money values. The experiences of the great war are indicative of 
 what the future has in store for the world in this respect. The public 
 will of course always be much concerned about the price of commod¬ 
 ities, but it will become likewise more solicitous about questions of 
 source and suppl^q and will think more about the significance of price 
 as an indication of supply than it has been wont to do. I mention 
 these two particular changes of viewpoint because they will be reflected 
 in the discussion which follows. 
 
 The landed areas of the earth undoubtedly always will be, as they 
 always have been, the main sources of the food, clothing and other 
 material goods needed by man; so agriculture, mining, water-power 
 development, lumbering, and so on, will probably ever be the supreme 
 raw-material industries and sciences. 
 
 But—and we here approach our subject proper—the waters of the 
 earth—the rivers, lakes and oceans—are now well known to science 
 to be capable of yielding vastly greater quantities of food and other 
 necessaries of human well-being than have yet been developed. Sir 
 John Murray, one of the most learned of all students of the sea and 
 its inhabitants, expressed the view that the total organic productivity 
 of the earth’s waters is probably considerably greater than the total 
 
 6 
 
productivity of its lands. Now any one acquainted with the uni¬ 
 formity there is in the basic substances of all life cannot fail to recog¬ 
 nize, on a little reflection, something of what this productivity of the 
 waters means in the way of possible sources of human food. It means 
 that under anything like great pressure of population on food supply 
 it would be only a question for science and industry to find ways of 
 utilizing these resources. 
 
 And here we come upon a very important aspect of science's part 
 in solving the problem of supplying man’s physical needs, namely, its 
 part in molding custom in accordance with reason and definite knowl¬ 
 edge, rather than permitting it to be determined by whim and preju¬ 
 dice and fashion and trade interests. 
 
 The experimental food laboratory will undoubtedly play a much 
 larger part in the future than it has in the past in determining what 
 plants and animals are available for human nutriment. The era of 
 deciding whether or not a given animal is fit for food, on the basis of 
 such whimsicalities as whether it chews the cud or has cloven feet, or 
 is taken in a month with no r in it, is drawing to a close for civilized 
 man. 
 
 3. SUMMAEY OF NOETH PACIFIC PEODIJCTIONS ALEFADY UTILIZED 
 
 TO SOME EXTENT 
 
 But with the general problem of resources of the sea and human 
 needs we are concerned only as a background for treating a special 
 case. Our purpose is to present a few considerations touching the 
 resources of a single economic area, the North Pacific. An inventory 
 of resources of this region, drawn up on the basis of actual observation 
 and experience, follows: 
 
 1. Human food. 
 
 Fishes: salmon, halibut, cod, tuna, sardine, flounder, sole, rockfish, barra¬ 
 cuda, herring, bonita, mackerel, yellowtail, sanddab, grayfish, smelt, 
 swordfish, anchovy, cultus cod, seabass, rockbass, and many others less 
 important. 
 
 MollusTcs, crustaceans, etc.: oyster, crab, spiny lobster, shrimp, clams (many 
 species); mussel, abalone, squid, beche-de-mer. 
 
 Turtle. 
 
 Marine algae: several species. 
 
 2. Agricultural fertilizers. 
 
 Many kinds of seaweeds, particularly kelp, refuse from all commercial 
 fishes, many kinds of fish not utilizable for food, refuse from whales, 
 turtles and fur seals. 
 
 3. Food for fowls. 
 
 Eefuse from commercial fishes and certain species of fishes not available 
 for human food. 
 
 7 
 
4. Clothing. 
 
 Fur seal; whale, porpoise and shark skin for leather; sea otter for furs; 
 abalone and other mollusk shells for buttons; marine algae for ban¬ 
 doline, sizing and stiffening for cloth and paper. 
 
 5. Oils. 
 
 Whales and various species of fish. 
 
 6. Ornamentation and industrial arts. 
 
 Pearl oyster and abalone for pearls; various molluscan species for shell 
 ornaments and inlay work, shells for various domestic articles; sea¬ 
 weeds for bric-a-brac, etc. 
 
 7. Chemicals. 
 
 Algae, many species, for agar-agar and other gelatine media, alginate, 
 potash, iodine, acetone, acetate, ketone, etc. 
 
 4. SPECIAL KEMAEKS ON THE FOOD AND A FEW OTHER RESOURCES 
 
 OF THE AREA 
 
 By far the most important single food fish so far utilized is the 
 salmon. The total product for the whole Pacific coast of North 
 America from this source for 1915 was approximately 625,000,000 
 pounds of fresh fish. 
 
 There is considerable reason for doubting whether much increase 
 of production from this source is possible, or at least practicable. The 
 output of the salmon industry has been, with much fluctuation, prac¬ 
 tically stationary for some years, though the producing capacity of 
 the equipment engaged in the industry has probably at no time been 
 taxed to its limit. In other words, increase of effort in the industry 
 would apparently not be able to increase greatly the output. 
 
 The fish next after the salmon in productivity is now, it seems, the 
 sardine. The pack of the first six months of 1917 was about 1,800,000 
 cases, giving a total estimated weight of fresh fish utilized for this 
 pack and for other purposes of 145,000,000 pounds. There is no doubt 
 about the possibility of further increase of product from this fishery. 
 Mr. N. B. Scofield of the California State Pish and Game Commission 
 has expressed the view that the California fishery will soon equal, at 
 least, that of Maine, which is about 2,500,000 cases annually. 
 
 After the sardine, perhaps the most productive single species is 
 the halibut of the Washington-British Columbia-Alaska coast. This 
 is in the main a fresh and frozen producy industr}^ and bulk weights 
 are given. The figures are for 1915: Oregon-Washington-British 
 Columbia to Alaska, 56,250,000 pounds fresh fish. The future possi¬ 
 bilities of this source of fish food is problematical. As we shall see 
 later, an urgent problem of conservation is already on hand in con¬ 
 nection with this fish. 
 
 Very close in importance to the halibut as a food fish conies the 
 long-finned tuna, or albacore, of the southern and Lower California 
 
 8 
 
coast. Indeed, if along with this species there is taken its several 
 relatives—the bonita, the yellow-finned tuna, the chub mackerel, and 
 the yellowtail—and prospective as well as actual production be consid¬ 
 ered, the group may turn out to be second to the salmon only in 
 importance. Four hundred thousand cases, or about 48,000,000 pounds 
 of fresh fish, is the estimated pack for 1917. There is no question that 
 with improved methods of fishing the product from this source would 
 be greatly increased—doubled at least. By far the larger part of the 
 quantity now produced is from one species, the long-finned tuna. 
 But two or three of the related species are probably not less abundant, 
 so only await exploitation. 
 
 This very imperfect statement of a few of the main sources of 
 fishery foods now yielded by the northeastern Pacific must suffice for 
 the analytic part of our treatment. The estimated grand total animal 
 product, that is, the product including not only the portion we have 
 partially analyzed, but all the rest, will conclude this part of our story. 
 According to Mr. P. W. Bailey, formerly secretary of the California 
 State Pish Exchange, about 100,000,000 pounds, or 50,000 tons, of 
 food fish were handled by the commercial fisheries of California alone 
 during the year 1916. 
 
 Prom all these figures and others not here used it appears that 
 the total fresh fish production of the Pacific coast is now not far under 
 1,000,000,000 pounds annually. Considering the imperfect state of 
 development of several of the fisheries contributing to the present 
 output, notably the cod and herring fisheries of Alaska, and the bonita, 
 mackerel, yellowtail, barracuda, and anchovy fisheries of southern and 
 Lower California, and the obvious possibilities of several animals, 
 notably the squid, the mussel, the turtle of Lower California, and the 
 fur seal, the porpoise and the whale, now practically untouched for 
 food, it is not beyond bounds to estimate that this could be doubled 
 during the next ten years, and the total for the coast brought to 
 2,000,000,000 pounds, or 1,000,000 tons, annually were there real 
 demand for such a quantity. 
 
 Casting up the whole account, actual and prospective, of meat 
 food production from the ocean of this part of the earth, and speaking 
 in the light of experience with fishery food by such peoples as the 
 Scandinavians and the Japanese, we shall be on safe ground if we 
 say that were the land-produced meat supply of North America to 
 become seriously insufficient for the population, the deficiency could 
 be made good to a large extent from the fisheries; and to the supplying 
 of this deficiency the fisheries of the Pacific could contribute their 
 proportion. Thus is brought to our attention in a rough and ready, 
 though I believe entirely trustworthy way, a large, readily available 
 supplement to this continent’s meat supply. 
 
 9 
 
Nor is it to be forgotten that America’s part of the great ocean 
 has long contributed, is now contributing, and unquestionably might 
 contribute in still larger measure to satisfying other needs of man 
 than that of food. Details on this aspect of our subject, though full 
 of interest, must be even more summary than that on food. 
 
 Barely touching the contributions of the fur seal to human clothing, 
 I mention the successful protective measures now being carried out 
 through international treaty, and call attention to the certainty, almost, 
 in the light of the history of the fur seal industry, that the herds of this 
 useful animal might be made productive in number of pelts beyond 
 what they have ever been, even before their original depletion while 
 the}^ were under Russian ownership. The fur seal comes nearer, 
 perhaps, to domestication than any other oceanic animal. 
 
 The only other latent source of human clothing from marine life, 
 which I mention, is that of leather from whales, porpoises and sharks. 
 Important developments in this direction seem likely. 
 
 Although several other human needs to which, as pointed out, the 
 animal and plant life of the Pacific are capable of contributing, ought 
 each to receive a few paragraphs at least, in even a summary paper 
 like this, the space at my disposal compels me to pss them by with only 
 a lump reference to them. 
 
 5. THE QUESTION OF PERMANENCE OF SUCH RESOURCES 
 
 This question comes up immediately when one considers seriously 
 the utilization of these resources on an enlarged scale. 
 
 Nothing is more obvious than that man’s control over the animal, 
 or even the plant life, of the sea has not reached, indeed, almost cer¬ 
 tainly never can reach, any such effectiveness as that which he already 
 exercises over the useful species of the land. Except for certain 
 actually and potentially important animals and plants, as the salmon, 
 shad, oyster, clam, lobster, crab, abalone, and possibly some algae, 
 which inhabit the littoral, or near-shore zone, there is no present out¬ 
 look for man to do much in the way of domesticating and breeding 
 marine species. His utilization of nature’s bounties in this realm 
 will probably continue to be, as it always has been, chiefly through Ids 
 labors as a harvester, rather than as a cultivator. So far as the great 
 oceanic waters are concerned, there is not much prospect for aquicul- 
 ture comparable with agriculture. 
 
 As to the main resources of the sea, industry and science are 
 occupied with native or wild species almost exclusively, rather than 
 with artificial or tame species, as they are in agriculture. In other 
 words, the problems dealt with are zoological and botanical in the 
 strict sense far more than are those with which agriculture deals. 
 
 10 
 
This means that the industries concerned with the utilization of 
 marine life are much more problems of conservation of wild life than 
 is agriculture, and hence must occupy themselves much more with 
 such purely zoological and botanical subjects as geographical distri¬ 
 bution, breeding habits, migration, ecological interdependence and 
 succession, and taxonomy. 
 
 With these general principles in mind, we can now state in general 
 terms what the question of permanence of the food and other economic 
 resources of the sea really is. It is a question of the geographic range, 
 density of population, environic conditions, and propagating hahits 
 of the various species figuring in the industries. 
 
 6. SOME TYPICAL QUESTIONS OE ABUNDANCE AND CONSERVATION 
 
 For the rest, we touch upon some of the main problems of supply, 
 approaching these through the zoological principles just mentioned; 
 and some of the legal and political problems that would necessarily 
 be involved in protective measures, should such be found useful. 
 
 First, I illustrate from Pacific Ocean experience, brief and meager 
 as that has been, something of what zoological research has already 
 done in connection with fisheries and kindred industries. 
 
 The apparently effective hold government has at last secured on 
 the problem of the Alaska fur seals rests mainly on the investigations 
 of Elliott, Merriam, Townsend, True, Evermann, Jordan, Stejneger, 
 Lucas, Clark, Osgood, and Parker, confining the enumeration to 
 American zoologists who have studied the animals during the period 
 of their American ownership. 
 
 The basis for an intelligent general management of the salmon 
 industry is securely laid in the scientific researches of Jordan, Gilbert, 
 Evermann, Kutter, Babcock and others. The practical significance of 
 scientific knowledge for fisheries receives striking illustration in the 
 salmon industry by the foreseeing, months beforehand, of the probable 
 small run of the sockeye salmon at Puget Sound during the summer 
 of 1917. That the run of this species, which has been the backbone of 
 the salmon canning industry on the Sound, is especially large every 
 fourth year, is so well confirmed as to be accepted as a rule for guiding 
 the plans of the operators. Since the last large run was in 1913, the 
 next large run was due last summer, 1917. But in 1913 a great earth 
 slide on the Fraser Eiver, the chief spawning stream of the species, 
 interfered so seriously with the ascent of the salmon as to arouse appre¬ 
 hension lest the special run of 1917 would be prevented. 
 
 Because of the comprehensive investigations on the habits of this 
 and other species of the Sound region by C. H. Gilbert and J. P. 
 Babcock, it was possible to submit this apprehension to searching ex¬ 
 amination. This was done and confirmation was reached that the extra 
 
 11 
 
harvest otherwise due in 1917 would not materialize; and such proved 
 to be the case, as the estimated sockeye pack for the season of 1917 
 is onfy 170,000* cases, which represents only 25 per cent of the sockeye 
 pack of 1913. Although I have no information on the point, probably 
 those interested in the industry were able, through this forecast, to 
 mitigate their loss to some extent. 
 
 Another example of the importance of zoological investigation for 
 industries based on marine animals is furnished by the whales of the 
 northeast Pacific. Were these mammals to come into new importance 
 as sources of articles needed by man, as they bid fair to do, the problem 
 of their conservation would come up immediately. We possess con¬ 
 siderable scientific knowledge from which to start for intelligent action 
 in this behalf. This knowledge is due, interestingly enough, to the 
 circumstance that a practical whaler of the former whaling era turned 
 zoologist and did a masterly piece of research work on the animals 
 concerned. I refer to Captain Charles M. Scammon and his mono¬ 
 graph, ^^The Marine Mammals of the North-western Coast of North 
 America.” With such aid as he could get from professional zoologists, 
 notably W. H. Dali, Scammon produced a work that must elicit the 
 admiration of every true student of animal life, and will never become 
 much out of date no matter how many centuries the science of zoology 
 continues to advance. 
 
 Finally, we cite the carefully worked-out demonstration by W. F. 
 Thompson that the halibut fishery of the northwest coast is surely 
 undergoing depletion and the seemingly rational conservation measures 
 proposed by him. 
 
 So we resume consideration of the question of permanence of food 
 and other maritime resources with a clearer perception that the prob¬ 
 lem is one the treatment of which depends largely on zoological knowl¬ 
 edge. 
 
 Let us notice a few fundamental zoological principles applicable to 
 the problem. First, every animal and plant species whatever is ter¬ 
 ritorially limited at any given time. Perhaps this seems so like a 
 truism as to render mention of it unnecessary. But active attention 
 to it is important both on scientific and industrial grounds; and that 
 as a practical fact it receives scant consideration by most persons I 
 have had frequent opportunity to notice. 
 
 A second of these principles is that, speaking broadly, the number 
 of individuals of a species existing at one time varies inversely as the 
 size of the individuals. This rule is subject to great modification, but 
 if taken with the intelligent caution essential to the application of 
 nearly all rules* of organic beings, it is unquestionably a useful guide. 
 In the absence of definite knowledge to the contrary we should expect 
 
 * Pacific Fisherman, November, 1917. 
 
 12 
 
the total number of the huge sulphur bottom whale to be less than the 
 total number of porpoises; the total number of porpoises to be less than 
 the total number of tuna; the total tuna population to be less than the 
 total sardine population; the grand total of sardines to be less than 
 the grand total of shrimps, and so on through the whole animal king¬ 
 dom. The applicability of this principle is obvious. By way of illus¬ 
 tration there is more reason for solicitude other things being equal, 
 about the supply of tuna than of the sardine. Other things being 
 equal, there is more likelihood of depleting the supply of halibut than 
 of sole; and so on. Confirmations of this rule are probably numerous. 
 The diminishing halibut supply of the northwest coast is in point. 
 But one of the most striking cases is furnished by the whales. 
 
 The whaling industry of the United States when at its climax, about 
 1846, constituted an appreciable fraction of the whole industrial life 
 of the nation, as is recorded in the number of animals taken. Accord¬ 
 ing to statistics given by Scammon, between 1835 and 1876 more than 
 292,000 whales were destroyed. But this destruction went well toward 
 depopulating the sea of these great beasts. That 730 ships with an 
 aggregate tonnage of 233,189 tons, and 70,000 people were engaged in 
 the business in 1846, objectifies sharply the magnitude of that one 
 productive capacity of the sea. The practical lesson for us will not 
 be missed: If whaling should again become a significant industry on 
 our coast, restrictive measures would be necessary almost at once if the 
 supply is to be kept up to even its present standard, which is surely 
 much below what it was before the great depletion due to the former 
 period of California shore whaling. 
 
 The principle governing supply next to be mentioned is that of 
 extent of territory inhabited by a species. This varies enormously 
 with different species of animals, being almost world-wide with many 
 marine species, especially of the lower orders; and quite restricted with 
 many others. Other things equal, obviously a species widely distri¬ 
 buted would be more abundant in individuals and hence less subject 
 to depletion through capture by man, than one of restricted distribu¬ 
 tion. Speaking generally, high-seas, or pelagic species are much more 
 widely distributed than are species confined to coastal waters, whether 
 living on the bottom or as free swimmers. And it is universally recog¬ 
 nized that the pelagic species of fishes are pre-eminently the ones least 
 liable to suffer from over-fishing. 
 
 But the two principles, size of individuals and geographic range, 
 are so inextricably connected with the rate of propagation that neither 
 can really be considered apart from the whole round of reproductive 
 and growth phenomena. The chief reason for mentioning them sepa¬ 
 rately is that though the whole reproduction complex has to be taken 
 into account finally, it often happens that an investigation of a species 
 reaches quite full knowledge under one head before it knows mucli 
 
 13 
 
under other heads; and by having* these principles in mind useful 
 conclusions may be drawn. 
 
 Take for example the case of the California gray whale. The fact 
 of its being so large would of itself be sufficient to justify the sup¬ 
 position that its numbers are small as compared with any species the 
 size of whose individuals is but a small fraction of the size of the 
 whale. But supplementing this knowledge as to size with the fact, 
 discovered with much more difficulty, that its geographical range is 
 small as compared with the range of most whales (it is restricted 
 seemingly to the coastal waters of western North America), puts an 
 additional curtailment on its probable total numbers, and makes 
 it, by so much, more liable to extinction through unchecked pursuit, 
 regardless of whether we know its breeding habits or not. As a matter 
 of fact this species seems to have been almost exterminated by the 
 previous whaling period and measures should be taken at once to ascer¬ 
 tain its present abundance and to regulate the killing of it in accord¬ 
 ance with the findings. 
 
 We now turn to the more general problem of quantity and exhausti- 
 bility of economically important marine species. 
 
 The diversity of view on this subject, even among those who have 
 studied it extensively, is surprising. One of the most distinguished 
 American zoologists and students of fisheries, Spencer Baird, wrote at 
 the conclusion of an extensive inquiry into the fishing industries of 
 the New England coast: ^ ‘ It is difficult to point out any locality where 
 near the shores in the New England states, at least, under the most 
 favorable view of the case the fish are quite as plentiful as they were 
 some years ago.” 
 
 Summarizing the conclusions drawn from a ten-year continuous 
 experimental inquiry carried on under the Sea Fisheries Amendment 
 Act of Scotland on the quantitative effects of steam trawling, Gar- 
 stang and Mitchell say : ‘ ‘ The results of this classical experiment point 
 strongly to the presumptions (1) that trawling operations in the open 
 sea have now exceeded the point at which their effect on the supply of 
 eggs and fry for the upkeep of the flat fisheries is inappreciable; and 
 (2) that protection of in-shore areas alone is insufficient to check the 
 impoverishment caused by over-fishing off-shore. ’ ’ 
 
 Marcel S. Herubel, in ^^Sea Fisheries: their Treasures and 
 Toilers,” expresses the unqualified view, supported by considerable 
 statistical evidence, that the fisheries of various parts of the French 
 coast, in both the Atlantic and the Mediterranean, are being impover¬ 
 ished by the industries, the statement having reference mainly to 
 bottom-dwelling species. 
 
 Perhaps the opinion on this matter most widely known among 
 English speaking peoples is Huxley’s. His conclusion, based on ex¬ 
 perience gained as a member of various commissions for inquiring into 
 
 14 
 
the conditions of British fisheries, was, in brief, that while certain 
 shore and river fisheries like those of the salmon and the oyster, are 
 unquestionably exhaustible, with fisheries of the open seas the case is 
 different. '‘I believe then,” he said, '‘that the cod fishery, the herring 
 fishery, the pilchard fishery, the mackerel fishery, and probably all 
 the great sea-fisheries, are inexhaustible; that is to say, that nothing 
 we do seriously affects the number of the fish. And any attempt to 
 regulate these fisheries seems consequently, from the nature of the 
 seas, useless.” (Inaugural Address: Fisheries Exhibition, London, 
 1883.) The observations and calculations given by Huxley in sup¬ 
 port of this opinion are undoubtedly weighty. A single pair of cod¬ 
 fish, for example, of the coast of Norway, he points out, on the basis 
 of data which seems trustworthy, would considerably more than supply 
 the whole of the codfish taken by all the Norwegian fisheries put 
 together in one season. 
 
 And a still more recent authority, W. C. McIntosh (The Resources 
 of the Sea, London, 1899, reaches a conclusion against exhaustibility 
 still more sweeping than Huxley’s: "So far as history and so far as 
 observations at the present time go, there is no ground for alarm in 
 regard to the permanence of the food-fishes” (p. 234). And this 
 applies to the sole and other fiat fishes near shore as well as to the 
 high seas species mentioned by Huxley. McIntosh’s conclusions are 
 noteworthy because based to a considerable extent on a re-examination 
 of the same data from which a report of contrary tenor had been drawn 
 by the Fisheries Board for Scotland. 
 
 And so experienced fisheries authorities as the Norwegians, Hjort 
 and Dahl, say (Report on Norwegian Fishery and Marine Investiga¬ 
 tions, Vol. I, 1900, no. 1) : "It is impossible to imagine that any 
 decline can take place in the stock of fish which, in any case during a 
 great portion of its existence, belongs to the open sea. No mention 
 has ever been made of any decrease in the yield of the bank round-fish 
 fisheries of the country. . . . The general desire, a desire which re¬ 
 ceives unanimous support, is certainly only that of enlarging them to 
 the greatest possible extent.” 
 
 "The Lofoten fisheries, which have been carried on for hundreds 
 and hundreds of years, certainly exhibited in former days as great 
 variations in their yield as they do now, and no proof whatever exists 
 of lesser abundance, now than formerly, of the cod which visit the 
 shores of the Lofotens, and very many other parts of our coast during 
 the spring” (p. 180). 
 
 On the whole the fullest and most trustworthy experiences the 
 world has so far had on marine fisheries seem to indicate that while 
 depletion of various kinds of near-shore and sea-and-river inhabiting 
 species, is likely to occur in particular localities, with species which 
 
 15 
 
belong primarily to the open ocean, such a result is practically beyond 
 the power of man. 
 
 The general conception about the oceanic species is that their num¬ 
 ber and the number of their eggs and young is so vast, and belong to 
 so vast a system of interdependent organisms—a system in which so 
 many kinds are at once feeding upon and being fed upon by one 
 another, that the little that man can do, either by way of destroying 
 or replenishing, is negligible. Otherwise expressed, the ^'balance of 
 nature” is on so prodigious a scale in the sea that man, operating 
 under the limitations imposed upon him by sea-faring conditions, can 
 have no effect. His interventions are powerless to change the course 
 of nature in this as they are to change the tides, is McIntosh’s way of 
 stating the view. The ocean is looked upon as a mighty reservoir of 
 life as well as of water, the former being little, if any more exhaustible 
 bv man than the latter. 
 
 7. IS THE NOETH PACIFIC AS PRODUCTIVE FROM THE FISHERIES 
 STANDPOINT AS THE NORTH ATLANTIC? 
 
 Coming back to our subject proper, that of the resources of the 
 North Pacific, I call attention to the fact that the conclusions set forth 
 above relative to the inexhaustibility of oceanic fisheries are based 
 almost entirely on experiences in the Atlantic; and that the conditions 
 presented by the Pacific are sufficiently different from those of the 
 Atlantic to make it unjustifiable to apply to Pacific fisheries conclu¬ 
 sions which may hold for Atlantic fisheries. 
 
 I am anxious not to be misunderstood at this point. The above 
 statement should not be taken to mean that I consider it very probable 
 that the commercial fishes of the Pacific are less in bulk than are those 
 of the Atlantic. I want to go no farther than is indicated by the exact 
 language. Oceanographicall}^ the North Pacific is a quite different 
 body of water from the north Atlantic; and the difference is of such 
 character as to make it possible, indeed rather likely, that the North 
 Pacific is on the whole somewhat less prolific of life than the cor¬ 
 responding part of the Atlantic. 
 
 All I want is to convince those interested in the fisheries of the 
 Pacific coast of North America, and scientific men generally, that the 
 question raised is one which, from both economic and scientific con¬ 
 siderations, is of much interest, and indicates the need of far more 
 extensive knowledge of the Pacific and its life than we now possess. 
 
 Before enumerating the conditions which suggest such a difference 
 of productivity of the two oceans, I mention that some naturalists have 
 surmised such a thing on the basis of more special considerations than 
 those here set forth. Thus Steuer: Since the neritic (near-shore) 
 
 ])lankton flows from the shore toward the high seas like an inexhaust- 
 
 16 
 
ible stream the seas and portions of the seas northward from the 
 ecpiator appear richer than those southward therefrom; likewise the 
 Atlantic seems richer than the ^great ocean’ ” (A. Steuer, Plankton- 
 kunde, p. 457). And some of the naturalists of California who have 
 had first-hand experience with the plankton off the California coast 
 have an impression, vague to be sure, to the -same effect. But, on the 
 other hand, there is evidence of rather exceptional riches of plankton 
 in some parts of the North Pacific. Viewed from any direction, the 
 need of extensive researches is manifest. 
 
 Stated in barest outline, the oceanographic facts which warrant 
 such conjecture about the productiveness of the Pacific are: Not only 
 is tlie North Pacific a much larger expanse of water than the North 
 Atlantic it is a more uniformly deep body; and since the principle 
 seems well established that although there is no part of the ocean too 
 deep or too remote from the continents to be inhabited by animals, the 
 deeper the water the less the bottom population per unit area. There 
 are many and important exceptions to this rule, but its general truth 
 is indicated by the quantitative study of many dredgings and trawl- 
 ings from widely separated parts of the ocean. And the suggestioi: 
 based on these hydrographic considerations, that the bottom fauna 
 of the Pacific may be somewhat less abundant than that of the Atlantic, 
 is confirmed, perhaps, by the fact that the bottom deposits of the 
 Pacific are, according to our present knowledge, somewhat less rich in 
 organic remains than are those of the Atlantic. 
 
 But if there is such a difference between the bottom faunas of the 
 two oceans it may be reflected in the pelagic fauna, since it is estab¬ 
 lished that there is more or less interdependence between the two. One 
 aspect of this interdependence, that, namely, of the to-and-from shore 
 migration of various pelagic species of commercially important fishes, 
 the Scombroids, for example, is especially significant from the economic 
 standpoint. 
 
 But the most striking oceanographic differences between the north¬ 
 ern parts of the two oceans are such as to suggest more direct influence 
 on the pelagic than on the bottom life. 
 
 The first of these to be mentioned is the fact that the North Pacific 
 is so much more nearly severed from the Arctic than is the Atlantic. 
 That tlie colder seas are richer in plankton than the warmer seas seems 
 definitely established. Numerous investigators of the pelagic life of 
 the north Atlantic (Brandt, Nansen, Nathansohn) have dwelt upon 
 the great productivity of the arctic polar currents. The East Green¬ 
 land current which brings arctic water into the North Atlantic, and 
 into the North Sea past the north of Iceland; and the Labrador cur¬ 
 rent which brings arctic water far down the east coast of North 
 America, are without counterparts in the North Pacific. Even the 
 Oya siwo of the east coast of Asia is not really an artic current. 
 
 17 
 
But more important than the currents, according to some authori¬ 
 ties, is drift ice. That this reaches well into the Atlantic off the 
 American coast and well into the North Sea off the European, is gen¬ 
 erally known. The Pacific receives no drift ice at all from the Arctic, 
 and very little, relatively, from any source in the northern hemisphere. 
 
 Why cold water, cold currents, and drift ice make the sea more 
 productive, need not be considered for the purposes of this paper. 
 The question has not as yet been answered quite satisfactorily, ])ut as 
 to the fact there seems no doubt. 
 
 Another oceanographic peculiarity of the North Pacific which 
 probably has important bearings on its planktonic productivity, is the 
 quantity of river water it receives. 
 
 One of the striking features of the North American continent is 
 the fact that so large a proportion of its drainage is toward the east, 
 into the Atlantic. At least two-thirds of the area of British North 
 America, the United States, and Mexico drain into the Atlantic, and 
 the average annual precipitation is probably considerably greater per 
 unit area for the Atlantic than for the Pacific catchment region. 
 
 It is definitely known that rivers, especially those whose courses 
 are through areas of rich land vegetation, contribute to the fertility of 
 the sea by the organic matter carried by their waters. But it is a con¬ 
 spicuous fact that the stretch of Pacific from San Francisco Bay south¬ 
 ward to Cape San Lucas, the southern limit of Lower California, a 
 distance of some 1100 miles, does not receive a single river of conse¬ 
 quence, the adjacent land being exceptionally arid. 
 
 Undoubtedly the problem of the place filled by nitrifying and 
 denitrifying bacteria in the ^ ^ metabolism ” of the ocean, especially in 
 regions which receive large quantities of organic matter from the land, 
 is very imperfectly known. But it would seem evident that two oceanic- 
 areas so different as those of the Atlantic and the Pacific contiguous 
 to the North American continent in respect to the quantity of fresh 
 water received by each; in respect to the difference of circulation in 
 each; and in respect to the amount of evaporation from each, would 
 present important differences in the totality of their plant and animal 
 life. And the phenomenon of up welling water on the California and 
 Lower California coast introduces a unique factor into the problem for 
 the American Pacific region, which may prove of high economic as well 
 as scientific importance, especially, perhaps, from its fertilizing effect 
 on the waters. This phenomenon is without a counterpart, apparently, 
 in the North Atlantic. 
 
 If the question be asked whether there are indications in the pelagic 
 life itself that the North Pacific is somewhat less productive than the 
 North Atlantic, attention may be called to two facts which may be so 
 interpreted. These are the relatively slight development of the Sar¬ 
 gasso sea in the Pacific; and the great area of ^‘red clay’’ ])ottom 
 
 18 
 
deposit in the North Pacific in contrast with the “globigerina ooze” 
 as the corresponding deposit in the Atlantic. Since these bottom 
 materials are held to be the result of the deposition through countless 
 ages of material from the superincumbent water, and since ‘ Aed clay,” 
 the characteristic deposit of the North Pacific, is predominantly in¬ 
 organic, while the characteristic deposit of the North Atlantic is pre¬ 
 dominantly organic, it is natural to conclude that the Atlantic has 
 been producing somewhat more organisms through the ages than has 
 the Pacific. Undoubtedly other factors might come in to modify these 
 indications. For instance more volcanic activity in and around the 
 margins of the Pacific may have increased the amount of atmospheric 
 dust which has fallen upon the water, and thus account for the ^Aed 
 clay” bottom. But again it might be supposed that this inorganic 
 excess for the Pacific would be met by the relatively greater inorganic 
 sediment of Atlantic water, due to the greater quantity of river water 
 poured into it. And still other alternative possibilities are presented 
 by the known differences. 
 
 8. EXTENSIVE SCIENTIFIC EESEAECH THE ONLY WAY TO ANSWEE 
 
 THE ABOVE QUESTION 
 
 Enough has been said, however sketchily, to make certain the purely 
 scientific interest of the oceanographic and biologic problems of the 
 North Pacific. But now that the entire northeastern portion of the 
 area has come into economic prominence from the development of 
 fisheries and kelp industries, the problems become doubly important 
 and call more insistently than ever for investigations on so compre¬ 
 hensive a scale as to be beyond the reach of any other support and 
 control than those of national governments. 
 
 Nor do the scientific and oceanographic problems thus far outlined 
 comprise all those that pertain to the Pacific. 
 
 Other fields of science would, or might, participate in such explora- 
 tional studies as are suggested. 
 
 Undoubtedly various meteorological problems of importance, espe¬ 
 cially in their bearing on the climate of North America, could be 
 investigated in connection with the undertaking. Reference to some 
 of these has lately been made by Dr. Charles P. Marvin, Chief of the 
 U. S. Weather Bureau, in supporting an earlier proposal for exploring 
 the Pacific. Speaking of certain much needed investigations on the 
 movements and stratification of the upper air. Dr. Marvin said: ^^No 
 other observations are more urgently needed in meteorology at the 
 present time than these, and it is difficult to conceive of a better field 
 for conducting such explorations on a broad and all-piclusive plan and 
 scale than the Pacific.” And 1 know from conversations with several 
 meteorologists who have given attention to west American meteorology 
 
 19 
 
i 
 
 \ 
 
 that there are other problems than that mentioned by Dr. Marvin^ 
 which calls for studies in the central and northern North Pacific 
 especially. 
 
 Geodesy and geology are other sciences some of whose problems 
 seem specially susceptible of illumination from investigations in the 
 Pacific. Professor John F. Hay ford has lately presented cogent 
 reasons why the Pacific is more important than any of the oceans for 
 gravity observations at sea. (The papers of both Marvin and Hay- 
 ford are in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences for 
 1916, Marvin’s, p. 421, and Hayford’s, p. 394.) 
 
 And this does not exhaust the list of sciences which could join with 
 benefit in such researches. 
 
 Finally, in order that one of the most vital, though least dwelt- 
 upon, matters of the paper shall not be lost sight of, I conclude as I 
 began, with a reference to the essentially international character of 
 most of the subjects presented. 
 
 The possible benefits, on account of the economic and scientific bear¬ 
 ing alone, which might be realized from the execution of a project like 
 that contemplated, are undoubtedly great. But I believe those latent 
 in it, as bearing on the relations among the peoples and governments 
 which ought to be, and from the nature of things would be, implicated, 
 are not less great. 
 
 The interests of the United States, Great Britain, and Mexico are 
 particularly close. But those of Japan are by no means remote and 
 inconsiderable. Nor can those of Russia be ignored. 
 
 
 20