control and fishery protection in , 1900-50 Robert A. Lambert

ABSTRACT Environmental history research in the archives of the Cornish Sea Fisheries Committee has revealed the extent to which some seabird species were perceived as pests in the early twentieth century by fishing communities, fishing organisations and estate owners in Cornwall and Scilly.An official bounty scheme operated in Cornwall during this time, alongside a private control scheme on Scilly.This paper estimates how many may have perished as a result of these control measures.

he archives and papers of the Cornish Sea existing legislation, known collectively as the Fisheries Committee (CSFC) contain Wild Birds Protection Acts 1880-1908) for the Tsome fascinating historical observations county of Cornwall (CC1/9/2; Home Depart- on the complex economic, environmental and ment/Montagu 1919). Regional control mea- political relationships between and the sures thus began. On 31st May 1911, the CSFC fishing industry of Cornwall and the Isles of decided on a bounty of 1/- (one shilling) to be Scilly between 1900 and 1950. The CSFC, based offered for each Cormorant or Shag destroyed in County Hall, Truro, was an original com- around the coast, except in May and June. In mittee of Cornwall County Council, formed in August 1911, the local Fishery Officer in each 1889 after the Fisheries Act of 1888 designated district was made responsible for payments for Cornwall as a separate Fisheries District. From the head of each brought in. Both species about 1909, the National Sea Fisheries Protec- had suffered varying levels of local subsistence tion Association had asked Cornwall to pay hunting, disturbance or persecution in Britain attention to the destruction of inshore fisheries for centuries, but this was different. It was an (fry and small fish) by large flocks of gulls Larus, organised and determined effort by a county as part of their countrywide campaign ‘Fish as council to reduce the regional populations of Food’ (CC1/9/1). Although gulls remained a these species by using a funded bounty scheme. source of moderate concern for fishing organi- Cornish fishermen seemed happy with this sations over the ensuing decades, the attention control policy. In May 1912, the crabbers on the of the CSFC turned, in August 1910, towards Lizard reported that since the Fisheries Com- investigating and combating the potential threat mittee had authorised the culling of Cor- to fisheries from local populations of fish-eating morants and Shags, there had been ‘a marked seabirds, particularly Great Cormorants Pha- improvement in the quantities of longshore lacrocorax carbo (hereafter referred to as Cor- fish’, bait had been more easily obtained and morant) and Shags P. aristotelis. ‘this has had no small share of influence in making the fishery so successful’ (CC1/9/2). Control measures begin The bounty scheme of 1/- was suspended in In 1911, after lobbying by fishermen (led by summer 1915, however, after questions were those based in Newlyn), and by an order of the raised over its legality, and because of wartime Secretary of State, Cormorant and Shag were stringency. It remained suspended for ten years, removed from the list of protected birds (under before being reintroduced in September 1925.

30 © British Birds 96 • January 2003 • 30-34 Seabird control and fishery protection

Isles of Scilly The Shag population on Scilly first came to the notice of the official bounty scheme in 1925/26, after a report was sent to the Chairman of the CSFC, in September 1925, from an unnamed ‘warden of bird colonies’ on Scilly with regard to ‘the depredation of fishing grounds by shags and cor- morants’ (CC1/9/5). At this time, the Ministry of Agricul- ture and Fisheries and the Min- istry of Health in London had just agreed to reinstate the bounty scheme to protect fish- eries, by agreeing that a portion of local fisheries committees’ funds could be used in the control of pest species, including Shags and Cormorants. From autumn 1923, the CSFC had been lobbying the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries to bring back the scheme to control these two species. The CSFC noted that, on 31st March 1926, there were large numbers /Windrush of Cormorants on Scilly, and Lord St Levan (a Sea Fisheries

Committee member) was urged David Tipling to investigate the matter. He 22. Shag Phalacrocorax aristotelis, Adult, Craigleith, Lothian. reported back in June 1926 and asked to contribute as well. Dorrien-Smith tabled a letter from Major Arthur Algernon never fully explained his grievance against the Dorrien-Smith of Tresco Estate which stated Shag, although in a letter about Grey Seals Hali- that, in fact, only 47 pairs of Cormorants bred choerus grypus in April 1935, he complained on the islands, but that there were considerable about the serious difficulties of obtaining numbers of Shags. Dorrien-Smith had himself smaller fish for bait purposes (especially for been overseeing local control measures since crab pots) in waters (CC3/9/41/5). 1920, proudly boasting that he had supervised the killing of over 6,000 adult birds and that his system for doing so was effective. He was killing The bounty scheme in practice How extensive was this control policy, and for birds throughout the year, but especially in May how long did it match the demands of fish- and June when birds on their breeding colonies ermen? Most local fishery districts in Cornwall were easier to shoot. The whole of this work took part, with the exception of Portloe, and the was carried out at Dorrien-Smith’s own expense CSFC felt that the bounty scheme was beneficial and, therefore, ‘he would welcome a grant of say to protect immature fish. Indeed, in March £15 to defray the charges of three men each in 1927, a Fishery Officer commented that the his local area to smash and destroy all the eggs scheme could profitably be extended to all and young’. Dorrien-Smith’s letter was warmly fishing areas in southwest and , received by the CSFC and they agreed, subject and could be taken up by all responsible island to Ministry approval, to give him the grant proprietors (such as on Lundy, Devon). In con- requested. The Duchy of Cornwall was to be

British Birds 96 • January 2003 • 30-34 31 Seabird control and fishery protection

trast, Scilly seemed to operate their own home- Seal, which was to be seen as the major regional grown control policy, conceived and orches- pest to fishing interests for the rest of the trated by Dorrien-Smith, and there are no century. The emphasis of the predator-control records to suggest that Shags which were killed policy changed from seabirds to seals. in Scilly were ever sent in to the mainland How many birds perished in Cornwall? The bounty scheme. No published county and figures in the archives reveal that from August regional avifaunas refer to the bounty scheme, 1911 to July 1915 a total of 4,220 Shag and Cor- although C. C. Vyvyan observed that Cor- morant heads were sent in to the bounty morants and Shags were destroyed by fishermen scheme, and that from September 1925 to whenever possible (Vyvyan 1953). She also December 1929 a total of 6,739 heads were sent noted how the high price of cartridges had in (including 2,076 between October 1925 and made shooting parties of cormorant [Shag] on July 1926, and 1,008 between 4th July 1928 and Scilly at Christmas far less common than in past 26th September 1928). This gives a total of years. Cramp et al. (1974) noted the past perse- 10,959 birds killed under the official bounty cution of Cormorant populations by some river scheme (see figures displayed in CC1/9/7-8). It authorities, and also that bounties had been is, however, unlikely that this figure tells the full offered in some areas for both Shags and Cor- story. It does not appear to include the 6,000 morants, but provided no evidence. adult birds killed on Scilly during 1920-26 In the 1910s and 1920s, the bounty scheme (there is no record of these in the archives), and probably satisfied Cornish fishermen that their Dorrien-Smith, in his letter of 1926, talks official fishing organisation was taking positive openly of killing nestlings and smashing eggs steps to safeguard their livelihoods. By 1928/29, on Tresco over a six-year period (CC1/9/6). however, fishermen felt that the scheme was Furthermore, some of the birds shot around the having little real effect and, indeed, that fish- rocky coastline of Cornwall may have been dif- eating birds were no longer the main problem: a ficult to retrieve. So perhaps a more realistic far greater menace had emerged. By 1931, the estimate is that as many as 20,000 birds in total fishermen of Cornwall and the CSFC were may have been killed in Cornwall and Scilly pointing the finger of blame directly at the Grey during the periods 1911-15 and 1920-29. /Windrush David Tipling 23. Shag Phalacrocorax aristotelis, Inner Farne, Northumberland.

32 British Birds 96 • January 2003 • 30-34 Seabird control and fishery protection

Isles of Scilly, 1946 Although the perceived Grey Seal menace dominated the predator-control policy of the CSFC from 1931 (see evi- dence held in CC1/9 and CC3/9/41), the control of Shag populations on Scilly did surface one last time. In June 1946, the Committee discussed a second application by Dorrien-Smith for the culling of Shags, which ‘had increased in very large numbers and were destroying the fry of fish around the islands’ (CC1/9/13). Shag numbers had prob- ably increased throughout Cornwall from about 1930, when the bounty scheme seems to have ended, and would presumably have increased during the war years when there would have been fewer men in the islands to control them. The district Fishery Officer sup- ported Dorrien-Smith’s claims that Shags had increased on Scilly, and the Ministry authorised another grant of £15 for their control. Unfortunately, there are no figures to indicate how many birds were killed there in the late 1940s, or how long the new control Robin Chittenden scheme operated. 24. Juvenile Great Cormorant Phalacrocorax carbo, Norfolk, September 1994. Comment It is difficult to assess the impact that control then declined slightly to 1983. schemes in Cornwall and Scilly had on regional There is perhaps one final observation to Cormorant and Shag populations, since statis- make. During the twentieth century, fishing tical evidence was virtually non-existent before communities around the UK were often very the ‘Operation Seafarer’ survey in 1969-70 quick to blame mammals and birds that they (Cramp et al. 1974). County avifaunas tend to felt were damaging the inshore fishing industry. reveal little more than the fact that Shags were Seals, Harbour Porpoises Phocoena phocoena, far more abundant in the region than Cor- dolphins (Delphinidae), Shags, Cormorants, morants (Rodd 1880; Clark 1906; Clark & Rodd gulls and even auks (Alcidae) were all identified 1906; Ryves & Quick 1946; Quick 1964; Penhal- as competitors with humans for fish stocks, and lurick 1978; Coulcher 1999). Operation Seafarer were at times labelled as pests. They were easy recorded 50 breeding pairs of Cormorants on scapegoats, often used to conceal a far more Scilly and 170 pairs in mainland Cornwall; and serious problem within the fishing industry, 1,000 pairs of Shags on Scilly and 740 pairs in namely the unsustainable human exploitation mainland Cornwall (Cramp et al. 1974). The of marine resources. Yet, although the fish- report of a survey of breeding seabirds on Scilly ermen of Cornwall did blame seals and seabirds in 1983 included a table of population trends of too readily, they were also aware, as early as seabirds in the islands since 1900 (Harvey April 1911, of the part they themselves were 1984). It estimated that the Cormorant popula- playing in the reduction of fish stocks. On 29th tion had possibly declined until 1945, then April 1911, a public meeting in Padstow consid- remained unchanged during 1946-83. No ered the quantity of immature fish destroyed assessment of Shag numbers was made during annually off the north coast by large numbers 1900-61, but after a period of stability during of trawlers. The fishermen resolved to take 1962-74, they increased markedly in 1975-77, action to prohibit the use of trawl nets with a

British Birds 96 • January 2003 • 30-34 33 Seabird control and fishery protection smaller mesh than 15 cm, and to restrict countryside, pitting recreational anglers (who trawling in shallow bays used as spawning are calling for a cull to protect their sport) grounds (CC1/9/2). This was an early and against conservationists. Joint research by the genuine attempt by fishermen (keen to protect Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust and Liverpool their own economic interests, of course) to take John Moores University (sponsored by three action to promote sustainability in local fish- government agencies) is being undertaken to eries. More importantly, it perhaps indicates improve the current understanding of the that these Padstow men were now willing to behaviour of fish-eating birds, their populations accept their own share of the blame. and the extent to which they cause problems for fisheries, and to develop effective management Economic note strategies. It is possible to estimate how much money, at today’s prices, the various control schemes Acknowledgments across Cornwall cost. Today’s prices are calcu- Funding from the Leverhulme Trust towards my research lated for 2001, using a retail price index to on the history of the Grey Seal in Britain allowed me to investigate these archives in Cornwall. I would like to adjust for inflation (see McCusker 2001). thank Ian Dickie of the RSPB Economics Department for During 1911-15, when the average value of one helping an environmental historian perform some basic shilling at today’s prices was £2.82, the number economic analyses.The staff of the Cornwall Record Office in Truro were helpful and hospitable. Professor T. C. of bird heads sent in was 4,220, giving a total Smout, Amanda Martin (Honorary Librarian, Isles of Scilly outlay of bounty money by the CSFC of Museum), Peter Wilkinson, James Walsh and Tim Elms £11,900.40 at today’s prices. During 1925-29, offered constructive and supportive comments on the when the average value of one shilling at today’s text, and I am grateful for their observations. prices was £1.96, the number of bird heads sent References/sources in was 6,739, amounting to a bounty payment This paper is based entirely on primary archival research. of £13,221.92 at today’s prices. As a conse- The archives of the CSFC (minute books 1889-1989, quence, the official scheme cost the county of reference CC1/9) are held in the Cornwall Record Office, Cornwall an estimated £25,122 in total (at Old County Hall,Truro, Cornwall TR1 3AY and are open to public access.The archives of the Dorrien-Smith family, today’s prices) in bounty payments to local fish- who have leased Tresco Estate on the Isles of Scilly since ermen. 1834, are privately held in Tresco Abbey, but no access to Dorrien-Smith was given £15.00 in 1926 to them has yet been granted. It is likely that these papers cull Shags on Tresco, equivalent to £579.88 at would contain some interesting material on the control of bird and mammal species perceived as pests in the today’s prices, and the same again in 1946, nineteenth and twentieth centuries. equivalent to £386.58. If, in 1926, he had sent in the heads of the 6,000 Shags he claimed to have Clark, J. 1906. Victoria History of the County of Cornwall. killed over the previous six years, then he could Vol. 1. London. Clark, J., & Rodd, F. R. 1906.The Birds of Scilly. Zoologist 10: have earned £11,130 in bounty money at 240-252; 295-306; 335-346. today’s prices, and it remains a mystery why he Coulcher, P.1999. The Sun Islands: A Natural History of the did not do this but then twice asked for money Isles of Scilly. Lewes. to help fund his private culling scheme. Cramp, S., Bourne,W. R. P.,& Saunders, D. 1974. The Seabirds of Britain and . London. Although we would consider these to be rel- Harvey, P.V. 1984. Seabird populations in the Isles of Scilly atively small sums of money, the real historical 1983. Isles of Scilly Bird Report 1983. . interest lies in the fact that Shags and other Home Department/Montagu, E. S. 1919. Report of the Departmental Committee on the Protection of Wild Birds. seabirds were perceived as genuine economic London. pests by Cornish fishing communities McCusker, J. J. 2001. http://www.eh.net/hmit/ppowerbp/ throughout this period, and that Cornwall led Penhallurick, R. D. 1978. The Birds of Cornwall and the Isles the way in taking some action against these of Scilly. Penzance. Quick, H. M. 1964. Birds of the Scilly Isles.Truro. birds, and purposely set aside monies to do so. Rodd, E. H. 1880. The Birds of Cornwall and the Scilly Of course, the perceived threat from expanding Islands. London. inland Cormorant and Goosander Mergus mer- Ryves, B. H., & Quick, H. M. 1946. A survey of the status of birds breeding in Cornwall and Scilly since 1906. Brit. ganser populations to lake or gravel-pit fisheries Birds 39: 3-11; 34-43. is currently a source of conflict in the British Vyvyan, C. C. 1953. The Scilly Isles. London.

Dr Robert A. Lambert, Department of History/Business School (TTRI), University of Nottingham, University park, Nottingham NG7 2RD

34 British Birds 96 • January 2003 • 30-34