Remarks On A Proposed Bill For The Better Preservation Of Salmon

________________________________________________
Title:     Remarks On A Proposed Bill For The Better Preservation Of Salmon
Author: Thomas Garnett [More Titles by Garnett]

CLITHEROE, _August 27th_, 1860.

HENRY GEORGE, ESQ.

DEAR SIR,--I am favoured by the receipt of your letter of the 25th inst., and the accompanying draft of a proposed bill "for the better Preservation of Salmon," and proceed at once to offer such remarks and suggestions as occur to me, and shall be glad to learn that they meet with your approval.

In the third clause (section) you give an interpretation of the names under which you wish to include all fish of the Salmon kind. Does not this include common Trout? You specially include Char by name. Would it not be better to limit your intentions to all migratory fish of the Salmon kind, to wit, Salmon, Grilse, &c. &c.? I think also the meaning of a fixed net wants defining more rigorously. As it now stands it appears to me that it would include any net which should be fastened on a root or stone whilst it was being drawn through a pool, if the men employed in doing this were to let go the cords whilst they loosed the net from the obstruction.

Fourth clause.--I quite agree with you on the period allotted to annual close time, but think there ought to be a penalty for buying, selling, or having in possession Salmon roe (save and except for the purpose of artificial propagation).

Seventh.--I do not agree with you at all on the subject of the weekly close time, which in my opinion ought to be for one-half of every day, except Sunday, and the whole of that day. Why should the owners of fisheries at the mouths of rivers, who are at neither trouble nor expense in breeding or preserving the spawning fish, have all the benefit derivable from their increase? Why should the upper proprietors act the part of brood hens for these, hatching and preserving the fish for the benefit of those who take no trouble about these things themselves?

Twelfth.--I do not agree with you as to the size of the mesh: I do not think that a mesh of twelve inches in circumference, or three inches from knot to knot, at all too large; it would permit fish below six pounds to escape, and this being done, there would under any circumstances be a fair supply of breeding fish.

Fifteenth.--I think your leister requires a more rigorous definition. A man in this neighbourhood is reputed to have killed a good many Salmon with a hay or a dung fork. Are either of these leisters?

Your sixteenth section is utterly impracticable. How could such hecks or grates be prevented from choking with leaves in the autumn and ice in the winter, thus stopping the wheels? You might as well require a farmer to hedge out the game. Impose a penalty, if you like, upon any millowner who may kill Salmon in his mill lead; and as you give your conservators power to inspect everywhere, you will readily detect such practices. But it will never do to close the mills by pretexts that the fish may be taken or killed there.

Twenty-first.--I do not understand the meaning of this. But taken in its ordinary sense, it seems to me to be very unjust. Many persons have traps in their weirs for the purpose of taking Salmon to which they plead a prescriptive right. Do you mean to do away with these? You may succeed in this, but why should not a man be allowed to fish in the river above the weir where there are no obstructions to the passage of the fish? And why should not a man be allowed to fish with a rod and line below the weir, and as near to it as he chooses? I think weirs might be safely divided into two classes: those used for manufacturing purposes and those for fishery purposes; that a man should be allowed to say in which class his weir should be included. If for manufacturing purposes he should not be allowed to catch Salmon (except with rod and line) within a certain distance below the weir. If he choose to class his weir as one for fishery purposes, he should then be compelled to give a free passage to the fish for twelve hours every day; but he should be compelled to make his election as to the class in which he would include his weir.

Twenty-fifth.--It would never do to allow the commissioners to make bye-laws. Suppose the case of a millowner who got into a dispute with them: he might be utterly ruined by their bye-laws; they might make bye-laws which deprived him of his water-power, under a pretext that they were taking more efficient care of the Salmon.

Thirty-first.--I think the licence to angle should be compulsory, and not at the discretion of the commissioner. That it should be in the nature of a game licence, qualifying and enabling the holder to angle in any river of Great Britain and Ireland, provided he had the consent of the owner of the fishery where he was angling.

(_Additional observations_). Twelfth.--You say that no double net shall be used. Do you mean to prohibit the trammel, which is usually a treble and not a double net? You also prohibit one net behind another, but you do not specify the distance outside of which a second net would be lawful. If neither a series of Scotch nets nor a single trammel is to be used, by what sort of net do you propose to catch the Salmon?

Nineteenth.--You say the sluices which admit water to wheels or factories shall be kept closed from six o'clock on Saturday night to six o'clock on Monday morning. How, then, are the repairs of shafting and machinery to be made? These are generally done when the workpeople have gone home on Saturdays. Besides, what is your object? If the river is low, the Salmon will not be running up the stream, and if it be in flood there will always be an abundant supply running over the weir in addition to that which would be required to turn the wheel. You add that the water may be allowed to flow freely through the waste-gate, provided the opening of such a waste-gate shall not deprive the mill of the necessary supply of water.

Eighteenth.--In this clause you say that in weirs already constructed it shall be lawful for the commissioner, on the application of any two or more persons interested in the fisheries of such river, and at the proper costs and charges of the persons making such application--proof having been first given, &c.--to cause a survey to be made of such dam or weir by a competent engineer, and to direct such alterations to be made therein as shall, in the opinion of the commissioner, be necessary and desirable, &c.

In this clause, which so far as it goes is very desirable, you have omitted a proviso without which it could never pass into a law. You have forgotten to provide for the legal right of the millowner, which would, or might, be taken away by the alteration made in the weir unless there were some provision in the act which prevented this being done. At present there is no such proviso in your act. Here I have offered for years to allow the upper proprietors to make any alteration they liked in the weir, provided such alterations did not affect the milling power, the stability of the weir, or my legal title to the weir as existing at present. And my legal adviser tells me that any alteration made in the weir without a guarantee from the upper proprietors would very probably deprive me of my present title.

[The end]
Thomas Garnett's essay: Remarks On A Proposed Bill For The Better Preservation Of Salmon

________________________________________________



GO TO TOP OF SCREEN