WAIAU MOTOR FIENDS.

Press, Volume LX, Issue 18128, 18 July 1924, Page 11

WAIAU MOTOR FIENDS.

i TO THE EDITOR. 0* "THE PSKSS-" Sir,— "iSafe£y First's" letter: in yonr issue of 1 15 t- isi to 6ay the most, amusing. It looks as though he and his feliow-scribe: are '"hear i say" ! writers, since they cto hardly be • writing from personal- observations.. . Are they aware that, their j; correspondence;" induced a responsible official, to pay a surprise visit to tlie. village' when': the' so-called- ' 'motor -iends'' -were in evidenco as much-ns usual, - but., who apparently di<f nob prove to be * the recldegs'.anS :dangerous- creatures they are 1 - represented :to .be? Can'they not "imagine'the- ni<?e"things that .oould,he said of such indisoreet writers? Signposts bearing the words STOP, LOOKj LISTEN erected at some, of. '."Safety EirstV'.most feared and- busy crossings would be less expensive than subways 3uly, 16th, 1924,

SALMON. [ TO TH* EDITOR 0* "-Tne priss." : ! Sir, —I must congratulate Mr-M. HI. j Godby on the much-improved tone of his-letter of July 11th. The spirit is much more conciliatory, but I regret to find that there are passages in it that I .cannot accept. Here i 3 one: 'Angler' now admits the'reasonableness of my criticism on all points except two,.- tho Eo-calleJl ■ 'parent 6tream' theory . and - death after -. spawning." This is not correct. Mr Godby-s letter of criticism can bo set out under four main heads: (1/ That quinnat are a menace to trout. (2> Tlie so-ealled_ "parent stream" theory. (3) The Four-yearly big run. (4) Death after spawning'. Ido not agree with Mr Godby that quinnat are a menace to trout. I have already given some reasons in that connexion !in a former letter. Another important fact bearing on this point is that in North-Western America, the Pacific salmon go up the rivers in millions, several (varieties of trout do remarkably well in the same streams. Those who are interested in the salmon industry regard the trout as a menace to their business. So well are the trout acquainted with salmon ova that salmon roe is the most deadly bait that can be used -in' these rivers, and its use is regarded as a form, of poaching and forbidden by law. "With regard to the so-called "parent stream" theory, it would be Interesting to know just exactly what Mr Godby does mean "by it. I can find nothing in Mr Ross's, article that clashes with my own view of it. Here is perhaps Mr Jloss's chief statement. "It was once- .believed that, they all returned to their parent rivers; but tliis has now been disproved," That statement is quite correct. I cannot see that Mr Ross has discredited the theory in making that statement. The fact that there are so many exceptions to it shows.that the theory needs to be re-stated =in better form. Dr. Evermann's advice to call it the "home stream" theory is a movement' in ' the right direction.- Mr Godby's tendency to regard it as something like a law in physics is too stringent. My: own idea ' is that salmon will keep in touch with their home so long as'they hatve a good food supply, and other conditions are favourable. . If the food supply, is short jthey will go further afield just like .'any other creature. | Mr Godby does not believe in a fouryearly big run ift connexion with quinnat. I think 7 there are excellent reasons for believing that 1927 Will see a big run of these: fish. We had a .big run in 1923; and since the majority of quinnat return- "at the end of their fourth year,' it is reasonable to expect another big run four years afterwards. So 1926 sholild see a big run of'sockeve in our rivers, a very big majority of them four-year-old fish. The run of sockeye in 1925 6hould be much smaller than any one of' the three preceding years, and. a majority of them should b9 five-year-old fish and very apt to be mistaken for small cjuinnat. ' ' ' It is in dealing with the well-known fact of - death, after spawning that Mr Godby flourishes his "cudgel" and kicks up the greatest shindy. To his credit Jet it be: recorded that after wading ' into ; profound j philosophical depths in search of the meaning of the word "proof,", ho calmly wants to know, what all the. fuss is about.,. Of course we all accept this as a general rule; but with it many of "us, for reasons .that are quite reasonable, entertain the hope : that; : there are; exceptions. If Mr Godby will carefully examine the situation ne will see that we are right; but before. ho will be able to do 60 he will have to revise his ideas of"inductile logic. Loolc' at -this: "It is doubtful whether inductive logic can prove anything." This means that he lias not yet made up his mind as to when a tiling' is proved; and yet, in spite;«f ' that, he carries on a contropragmatism would do him a. world of good. ITie inductive process, as I understand it, is, this: You first entertain a hypothesis and then you' test it "in evert' detail. If it fails you discard it and ;fcry, another. , ,We;- have a logical right ; '.'some quinnat .. sumve . after spawning" 1 —until it has ■ been; - enquired - into in every detail and found wanting. The quotations from Gilbert, in. spite-of. his dogmatic statements, are ; nothing / but a 'confession that, the enquiry is a long Way from beirig complete. He - knows nothing about the fresh water fingerlings, he' knows ndthing about, the fish over:67lb, except, what he'has guessed, arid guessing is not observation, and he may hot have observed a sufficient number of medium-sized fish. Oh.the positive side .we have ' a set of scales that- one fish survived t6 "return a second time. Thc(se> scales have : been widely <kcepted, and whatever is their value 'they, are- a big .stimulus to further enquiry. Inductive logic is much more ' than argument;' it is" a matter of obsenvation and experiment. At the. close of his letter Mr Godby, states: "I prefer to believe for the present that Mr Ross was drawing on his imagination when he wrote etc.'' about Mr Aysoti and' the 731b fish. That is hot much of a compliment to Mr Ross. It is much/ more. .that the, whole idea is' as as' Dr. ' Everniaiin's "orphans;'? and like them, it has f been going its : round, ■ . Almost exactly the same argument; is used by' Dr. Lambeit over "Fishing in British Columbia." ■ I do not see that any useful purpose can bo served by continuing this correspondence beyond this stage. I think the subject is: about threshed' out for the present. This will be my last contribution until. We hear ■ tlie result oiF Mr,.,. Edgar Stead's enquiries in' America.—Yours;'etc., ' ' '- ANGLER. ' • July 16th.