Seabird control and fishery protection in Cornwall, 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 birds 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 seabirds 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 bird 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 Scillonian 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 England and Wales, 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).