Keitelnetz
The Keitel (also Keitelgarn or Keitelnetz , formerly also Keutel, Keidel or Kidel ) is a bag or funnel-shaped fishing net that was used as a trawl or bottom trawl on the Curonian Lagoon . Similar networks, possibly under different names, have also existed in other areas (e.g. the Frischer Haff ). The name for the Keitelkahn goes back directly to this type of net .
The name is derived from the word Keutel , which primarily means 'baggy'.
construction
The Keitel is an approximately 10–12 m long, sack-shaped or funnel-shaped net without wings. In the front area it has a diameter of approx. 4 m; the circumference of the front edge is about 12 m. The Keitel is not drawn through the water with a round or indefinite opening, but rather spanned approximately in the shape of a rectangle with the help of the Keitel tree, floats and countersinks.
network
The Keitelnetz consists of 3 joined mesh parts that taper towards the back, each with different mesh sizes: front part (also torso ), middle skirt and figure eight yarn.
The body has relatively wide meshes (approx. 22–24 mm) in order to "swallow as many fish" as possible with as little water resistance as possible. The figure eight, the actual collection bag, is knotted much tighter in order to catch the fish safely; the mesh size was partially limited by the legislator (in the case of the eel keitel approx. 13 mm), but was a minimum of 6–7 mm. The figure eight was made up of 2 halves - so the rear, most stressed part could be exchanged.
Between the mid-skirt and the figure eight there was a narrow strip of net, the joost. The inkel was attached to this. This inner funnel net served to let the fish into the collecting bag as unhindered as possible, but to prevent it from swimming out again. At least the rear part of the incel was made of relatively fine yarn in order to irritate the fish swimming in as little as possible.
The figure eight was narrowed like a hose at the back, but not closed, but only enclosed with a locking cord. This meant that the network could also be opened and emptied from behind if necessary. The stander was attached to the locking line with another longer line - a float that showed both the position of the net while fishing and was used to grab the end of the net.
To increase the durability of the net, it was tarred .
Before the professional fishermen of the lagoon largely switched to the use of machine-knitted nets from around 1890, these were knotted entirely by the fisherman's family themselves. However, various power supplies (e.g. those with decreasing mesh sizes) still had to be made by hand. The linking of the individual power supply units was basically done in-house.
Keitelbaum and Botten
The keitel tree served to stretch the opening of the net in width. It was 6–8 m (sometimes up to 9 m) long and made of ash or spruce . For the eel, which fished sharply above the bottom, ash was chosen because it was heavier and thus “held the net better on the bottom”; in addition, ash poles had a less changing diameter in relation to their length. Otherwise, spruce was preferred because it was lighter overall and the swimming properties remained constant over a longer period of time.
At the sitting of the tree ends Botten the network has been struck; they also spanned the height of the Keitel. The botts were wooden boards about 1.5–2 m high. (They were in principle "as high as possible", but the height was limited, among other things, by the limited water depth of the lagoon). They were attached to the pegs of the tree in a rotatable and removable manner and attached to it with the help of lines ( bridles ). Since the keitel boom was always transported as shown in the illustration on the right, the boats had to be removable if this was necessary in rough seas or when the heeling was great .
Simms, floats and sinkers
An edge line, the Simm , ran around the opening of the net . This served both for reinforcement (or as a connection point) and for shaping. At least the Obersimm was also the start finished Keitel by the Pantenleine strengthened. On this sat swimmers (panties) , which stretched the upper edge of the net upwards in a slightly arched manner. The upper side of the entire network was also provided with smaller floats to keep it open as well as possible - the so-called fleets .
At the Untersimm however, were lowering agents attached to both the lower edge aufspannten, and kept the entire Keitel in balance. It was a little shorter than the Obersimm so that it didn't sag, but rather ran parallel to the bottom (which was especially important when fishing close to the bottom).
The main weights used for the net were stones, which were tied in accordingly; Very heavy stones (weights for the Keitel dishes) were fitted with appropriate fittings by the village blacksmith. Since the sinkers moved close above or on the ground, they sometimes came loose; therefore replacement countersinks were always carried. So-called grapestones were also used less frequently : rings made of clay that were safer to tie in, but were less durable (and also had to be bought). Lead or iron weights would have been too expensive and were almost never used. The float consisting primarily of cork , especially prior to its introduction also of suitable wood ( alder or willow , especially poplar - bark ); Hollow glass spheres had not prevailed.
Keitel harness
All ropes , wires and chains that were necessary for launching, fishing and hauling in are called keitel harness . Whether a device was referred to as a leash or chain, however, only partially indicates whether it was actually such a device; sometimes the material was changed, but not the name. Some names apparently have a Lithuanian or Curonian origin; numerous improvements to the harness were also due to the "Lithuanians" who mainly fish for the knit.
The keitel was pulled by 2 short chains ( Bottstrang or Bottstrangkette ) attached to the botten above and below , which came together in a V-shape. At their connecting point which were Bottleinen or chaplet (also Szapel ) attached, which in turn also converged to a central point of intersection. From this crossing point, different lines then ran on to the boat: loose line , tow line , coulter line (also Szarleine or control chain ). The drift line served more to transmit the tensile forces, the others to control or align the keitel.
Weights could also be attached to various points on the harness in order to balance the keitel at the desired depth. Depending on the position, these were fixed beforehand or, if necessary, could also be lowered on the lines during the catch. On the one hand, the weights were chosen in advance according to the desired depth of use; With higher wind strength (or the resulting speed) the keitel had to be weighted more heavily in order to keep it at the desired depth.
Fishing with the Keitel
The keitel was mainly used to catch eel and smelt . The smelt in particular was at times a mass fish and was sometimes sold as pig feed; There was apparently a generous “smelt measure” for trading with him: a wooden tub with a capacity of around 20 liters.
The keitel as fishing gear has existed for a very long time. In spite of this, the special, rather large type of " Keitelkahn ", to which he gave his name, emerged relatively late, from around the middle of the 19th century. This became necessary mainly because the keitels were getting bigger and bigger, stronger barges were needed to fish with them.
A special feature is that the barges drifted across the wind when Keiteln : In this way, the lines of the Keitel harness could be relatively far apart: The towing line, on which the main tensile forces lay, was attached to the main mast, the loose line to the small mast and the Szarleine to one rear oarlock occupied. The rudder was either completely unhooked or the helmhold ( tiller ) was placed as far as possible to leeward and the rudder tail was then temporarily attached to the rear oarlock; Steering was done with the lines of the Keitel harness (while drifting in front of the wind, no “steering” is actually necessary, the lines of the Keitel harness mainly influenced its position with respect to the boat).
Keitel types
There were mainly 3 different types of Keitelt, which were specialized in catching the different fish: Eel, spring and autumn nails were distinguished. They differed only slightly, above all in the mesh size (official minimum requirements had to be observed here) and in what height should be fished - the smelt tended to swim in the open water, the eel, however, just above the bottom. Often the same network was used and only slightly modified.
Harmfulness of the Keitels - environmental aspects
Since the lagoon is quite flat, ground contact was almost inevitable when Keiteln. In addition, the Eelkeitel was deliberately led as close to the bottom as it was technically possible without "getting stuck". Undersink and sinker should fit well to the ground, because "the eel loves muddy ground in which it likes to dig itself". Damage to the ground and vegetation was therefore inevitable - and in view of the high number of Keitlers, probably massive.
The Keitel has always been controversial. Its harmfulness was recognized early on and attempts were made again and again to prohibit or at least to restrict the fishing of the whitefly, since “the constant crossing of these fish continually disturbs the bottom of the lagoon, destroys the vegetation and scares away the fish. The small fish, which often get caught in the bag's twine in large numbers, are so stunned by the strong pressure to which they are subjected by the fast dragging of the net that they, even if the fisherman takes the trouble to throw them back into the water , float on the surface for a long time and mostly become a prey for seagulls and crows. ”A first ban can already be proven in 1578.
On the other hand, smelts seem to have occurred in almost unbelievable quantities, according to one report, "the use of the close-knit smelt is quite harmless, rather useful to utilize the smelts, which otherwise die and the water perish". In 1842, after considerable restrictions on smelt fishing, a situation had arisen that the lagoon was found “ 1½ miles thick with dead smelts, the bank lined for miles with hills 1½ feet wide with rotten smelts, besides which countless ones had already dried up Animals lay there. As a result of the spoilage of the water, numerous other fish than burbot, perch and whitefish died and gave off an unbearable stench ”.
Nevertheless it was the case that fishing with the nets that were actually too narrow also destroyed a lot of fry (especially valuable food fish) and fewer and smaller fish were caught. In some cases the bycatch was up to 80%. An official report in 1929 came to the conclusion that the "decline in the fish population in the Curonian Lagoon, especially pikeperch and perch in recent years ... was mainly due to the ruthless practice of whitefishing". The obvious need to enlarge the nets mentioned above could well be an indication of overfishing . The harmfulness of the Keitel has also been investigated by other authors.
Protective measures
In order to at least limit overfishing, fishing with motor power was prohibited on the lagoon until the end of the Second World War . In addition, seasonal restrictions have also limited the time available for keit fishing.
In addition, there were regulations regarding the dimensions of the geze - regarding the size of the nets and, above all, their mesh sizes. These were also enforced: fishing gear that did not meet the requirements was confiscated and fines were imposed.
Areas in which the knit fishing was carried out
Fishing with the Keitel was also localized, primarily due to considerations of environmental compatibility. The borders were shifted again and again; in principle, however, it was only allowed in Südhaff. The entire Curonian Lagoon is relatively flat with an average of 3.8 m, but the northern part (less than 2 m) is particularly and almost without exception flat.
In addition to the depth considerations regarding the soil, the vegetation and spawning areas played a role, so that the boundaries of the fishing areas were shifted again and again in the southern lagoon and special protected areas were set up.
literature
- Werner Jaeger: The fishing boats on the Curonian Lagoon. ISBN 3-89534-160-6 .
- Berthold Benecke: The fishery in East and West Prussia. In: Deutsche Fischerei-Zeitung, Stettin (from No. 11) 1880, (to No. 13) 1881.
- Berthold Benecke: fish, fishery a. Fish farming in East and West Prussia. Koenigsberg 1881.
Remarks
- ↑ The Curonian Lagoon was geographically located in East Prussia - however, this part also traded as Prussian Lithuania and was characterized by a mixed Prussian-Lithuanian population. Prussians , Kurds, and Lithuanians formed the actual indigenous population; their languages can all be assigned to the Baltic language family .
- ↑ Unfortunately, there are no optimal pictures of such a Keitel including Keitel dishes "in action" in Wikipedia. An approximate idea of a Keitel in working position may be provided by the historical illustration in the article trawling . A very useful representation can also be found in this ( Memento of the original from February 27, 2013 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. Article on shrimp fishing in the section “Crab fishing with beam trawls”.
Individual evidence
Almost all of the individual proofs come from the above. Book by Werner Jaeger. There the whitefishing is described in great detail and illustrated with a number of sketches. The quotations from Benecke also come from Jaeger's book and were marked as such by him there.
- ↑ According to Grimm : German dictionary - look up the term Keutel online
- ↑ JAEGER, table pp. 336–7.
- ↑ a b c Jaeger, p. 355 ff.
- ↑ Jaeger, p. 372 r. u.
- ↑ Jaeger, p. 285 ff .: "Network production".
- ↑ a b Jaeger, p. 351 f.
- ↑ a b Jaeger, p. 365 ff.
- ↑ Jaeger: p. 305 ff.
- ↑ Jaeger, p. 300 ff.
- ↑ a b c Jaeger, p. 381 ff.
- ↑ Jaeger, especially Fig. 571 a. 572, p. 350, Figs. 636-8, p. 385.
- ↑ Jaeger, fig. 66, p. 301.
- ↑ Jaeger, p. 348: "Boats with which the Keitelfischerei was operated".
- ↑ Jaeger, p. 398: "The spreading and the driving in front of the Keitel".
- ↑ a b Jaeger, p. 348 f .: General information about the Keitel yarn.
-
↑ Jaeger gives the number of licensed Keitels for 1881 with approx. 300 (quoted on p. 335 after Benecke), for 1929 with 203 - the latter number does not include the Lithuanian fishermen of the Nordhaff at the time. (P. 347)
It was not allowed to fish on the Nordhaff itself, but these fishermen still had permissions and went fishing on the Südhaff. (It is not known whether they were able to continue fishing on the Südhaff at this time, or whether the restrictions on the Nordhaff were relaxed.) - ↑ Berthold Benecke: The fishery in East and West Prussia and fish, fishing u. Fish farming in East and West Prussia. 1881; cited in Jaeger, pp. 334–336.
- ↑ a b Jaeger, chap. The harmfulness of the Keitel. From p. 343.
- ↑ Benecke, quoted in Jaeger: Die Schädlichkeit des Keitels. P. 343 f.
- ↑ Answer of the Prussian "Minister for Agriculture, Domains and Forests" to a small inquiry about "the release of the nets confiscated from fishermen of the Curonian Lagoon" from the spring of 1929; quoted from Jaeger, p. 344.
- ↑ Marré: Investigations into pikeperch fishing in the Curonian Lagoon. 1933 - according to Jaeger, p. 345.
- ↑ Jaeger, p. 104 ru
- ↑ Fishermen from Memelland , article about fishing on the Curonian Lagoon
- ↑ a b Jaeger, from p. 345: Fishing areas of the knit fishing and places that operated the knit fishing - especially Fig. 570, p. 346.
Web links
- Article about fishing in East Prussia - a rather general article that does not provide any further information on the Keitel network, but is still worth reading in this context
-
Fishermen from the Memelland - general information on fishing on the lagoon, but also a short section about the Keitel net;
However, some information (especially designations) contradicts Jaeger's information, which is very credible and partially documented (moreover, the designation Memelland is actually incorrect, as it only includes the now Lithuanian part of the lagoon, but the entire lagoon is clearly discussed)