CLITHEROE, _23rd April_, 1863.
To the Editors of the "Leeds Mercury."
GENTLEMEN,--I am somewhat at a loss to understand the object of Mr. Horsfall's letter on this subject which appears in the "Mercury" of to-day. If he means that fish hatched by this process are as much at the mercy of their natural enemies as they are in their natural spawning beds I differ from him entirely; but if he means that there is no good in breeding migratory fish like Salmon, when the obstacles to their return in the shape of stake nets, impassable weirs, and poisonous waters are so numerous as they are at present in many rivers (the Wharfe and the Aire are examples of both), I entirely agree with him. Let us consider both suppositions, for the more this subject is ventilated the more likely is good to arise from the discussion. I think Mr. Horsfall is entirely wrong in the first supposition, for the following reasons: By artificial propagation the young fish escape all damage from floods, and particularly ice floods, which scoop out all the loose gravel from the spawning beds, which are frequently entirely carried away by these floods. They escape all danger from drought, which in some rivers is almost as bad, there being now several mounds of dry gravel in my length of the Ribble which were spawning grounds last December. They escape being destroyed as ova by Trout, Eels, Bullheads, Loaches, the larva of aquatic insects, ducks (wild and tame), water rats, and water shrews. The last are said to be destructive to the spawn; but this I do not vouch for, as these two last-mentioned animals have not come under my own observation as devourers of spawn.
With regard to the 500 Salmon ova said to have been taken from the stomach of a Trout, Ramsbottom is the authority for it, only he says there were nearer 1,000 than 500, and he took them from the maw of a large lake Trout at Oughterard, when netting the spawning Salmon for his artificial propagation. When Ramsbottom was fish breeding for Mr. Peel the year after he first went to Ireland for that purpose, he went into the brooks at night with a light. He never found a pair of spawning fish without also finding several waiters on Providence in the shape of small Trout, which were picking up the ova that descended the streams towards them. Several of these he caught, and they were perfectly gorged with spawn.
With regard to the ducks, Ramsbottom is again my authority. He found that a flock of tame ducks frequented the spawning beds at Oughterard; he bought one for the purpose of ascertaining whether they eat spawn or not, and he found its crop quite full of spawn. With regard to the aquatic larvae of insects, Mr. Horsfall may easily satisfy himself that they destroy spawn if he will turn some into an artificial spawning bed. One of my friends failed to hatch his Trout ova because he could not keep out the fresh-water shrimps.
Mr. Horsfall seems to think that nature would be sufficient to take care of her own interests if man did not step in to aid her endeavours; but if he is a sportsman he no doubt has a game- keeper, who not only preserves the ground from poachers, but traps cats and weasels, shoots hawks, magpies and carrion crows, breeds tame pheasants, and generally looks to the well being of the game without trusting to the efforts of unassisted nature.
Let us take the second supposition, that there is no good in artificial propagation when the fish which are sent to the sea can never come back again by reason of insurmountable obstacles. If Mr. Horsfall means this he is quite right; there is no good in the upper proprietors of Salmon rivers becoming brood hens for the owners of fisheries at the mouths of rivers or the proprietors of impassable weirs, who take all the fish which get to the foot of these weirs. I quite agree with Mr. Horsfall that it is in most cases easy to build practicable fish passes, and at a slight expense, if people were willing to do so; but I wish to show that notwithstanding the boasted effects of the Act of 1861, the upper riparian proprietors have not a sufficient inducement to build fish passes, and will not do so unless the expense can be made very moderate indeed.
I will take the river Ribble to illustrate my meaning. As a general rule we have no fresh run Salmon until May, and the upper proprietors are supposed to have a sufficient share of the fish that ascend the stream if the owners of the fisheries in the estuary and the tidal part of the river cease to net from six o'clock on the Saturday night to six o'clock on the Monday morning. That is a day and a half per week. The fishing for Salmon (except angling) ceases on the 31st of August, and from the 1st of May to the 31st of August there are 123 days. Call the period eighteen weeks, which gives us twenty-seven days during which time the Salmon have liberty to pass to the upper parts of the river. But on the average of seasons, owing to droughts, the rapid absorption of moisture by vegetation, and the great evaporation, there is no fresh water to enable the fish to ascend during two- thirds of that time. Every one who knows anything of the habits of Salmon is aware that they never ascend the rivers from the estuary unless there is a fresh in the river; and, as I said before, on the average of seasons there is no fresh for two-thirds of the time from May to August. This reduces the twenty-seven days (which are supposed to feed the upper proprietors with Salmon to repletion) to nine days, and these nine days are expected to stock the river and its tributaries for one hundred miles. It is true I have not taken into consideration the privileges which the upper proprietors have of angling to the 1st of November; but besides the fact that the fish are then full of spawn, and ought not to be killed at all, very few rise at the fly, and when they are taken they can neither be sold nor used by any one who knows what a fresh Salmon is. It is a greater crime against public polity to kill a spawning Salmon than it is to steal a sheep; for, supposing it produces 10,000 ova, and one in a hundred returns as a Salmon, it returns from a place (the sea) where it has cost nothing in rent, taxes, or superintendence, and, in the finest condition imaginable, it invites us to take it.
Mr. Horsfall and I both wish for the same results (rivers swarming with fish), and although we may somewhat differ as to details, I have no doubt both would be glad to see public attention directed to these matters rather more than it is at present.
If Mr. Horsfall will do me the honour to come and see me, I will show him an efficient fish-pass which has been in operation forty years. It may suggest some ideas to him, and he may be able to suggest some improvements in it which I should be glad to receive.
I am, Gentlemen, Your obedient Servant, THOMAS GARNETT.
* * * * *
LOW MOOR, _4th January_, 1865.
DEAR SIR,--As I believe Mr. Eden, the Commissioner of Salmon fisheries, is visiting various districts connected with Salmon rivers in England and Wales, with a view of explaining the proposed alterations and additions to the bill of 1861, and as I think from what I have learnt that the proposed alterations and additions will not be satisfactory to the upper proprietors of Salmon rivers, I wish to call your attention to the matter, that, if he should come into this district, the gentlemen interested may be able to point out to him how far these alterations are from meeting their wishes. Supposing that the new bill (as published in the "Field" newspaper, and explained and commented on by Mr. Eden) is to be understood as a government measure and one in which they will allow of no alterations, I maintain that it is very objectionable both from what it omits and what it purposes to do.
To begin with the former, or, in other words, to take the recommendations of the Worcester meeting as the groundwork of new legislation, it does not touch on several of them; they were, so far as I remember (for I have no memoranda to refer to) an extension of the weekly and annual close time--minimum penalties: --a close time for Trout, and a right of way on the banks of Salmon rivers for all water-bailiffs, duly appointed, without their being deemed guilty of trespass; and a tax on fishery nets and implements, for the purpose of defraying the expenses of protection.
Now, so far as I understand the bill as proposed, the only one of these recommendations included in it is the tax. I am wrong in this--the taxation is not included in the bill, but was suggested by Mr. Eden at the meeting he attended lately at Chester. The bill proposes that the choice of conservators shall be vested in the magistrates at quarter sessions, and the conservators shall have power to expend all the funds raised by voluntary subscriptions for certain purposes mentioned in the act. But Mr. Eden suggested at Chester that if these funds were inadequate the conservators should have the power of supplementing them by a rate on the owners and lessees of fisheries in proportion to their extent. Now one man may have an estate on the banks of a river extending for miles from which he derives little or no revenue; while another may have a fishery not extending more yards than the other does miles, but from which he derives a revenue of as many pounds as the other does pence. If Mr. Eden's meaning is lineal extent, I feel very sure it will not meet with the approval of the upper riparian proprietors. Again, why should the magistrates in quarter sessions (nine-tenths of whom know nothing of Salmon or Salmon rivers) choose the conservators? What, for instance, would the magistrates meeting at Wakefield know of the Ribble or the Hodder? What would they care about the matter? They would choose the men who had power to tax the riparian proprietors and lessees; but as they would not be taxed themselves, they would look on with great composure. No; if we are to be taxed, let us tax ourselves, and not leave it to those who will have no interest in the matter, and who may involve us in litigation and expense over which we shall have no control.
The recommendations of the Worcester committee deserved more consideration on the part of Government. They were suggested by men of great experience, and, moreover, unless they are adopted and legalized by Parliament there can be no permanent prosperity for Salmon rivers. Take the extension of close time as an instance. It cannot be right that the owners or lessees of estuary fisheries shall be allowed to take ninety per cent. of the fish which they have neither bred nor fed, and whose well-being and increase they have done nothing to promote; while the upper proprietors, on whom devolve all the care, trouble, and expense, are to rest satisfied with what the thirty-six hours per week can give them. What did they give the upper proprietors on the Ribble and the Hodder last season? Little or nothing. When the bill of 1861 was before the House of Commons, I had an opportunity of suggesting (indirectly) to the late Sir George Cornewall Lewis the propriety and desirableness of an extension of the weekly close time for the benefit of the upper proprietors. He replied, "You might as well propose to restrict the shooting of partridges to three days a week as to restrict the netting of Salmon." But with all due deference to so great an authority, there is no analogy between the two cases. If partridges had all to migrate and return before they could be legally shot, and had, like the Salmon, all to return by the same road, ninety per cent. of them before reaching the district where they were reared would become the prey of men who had neither bred nor fed them. I fancy sportsmen would want protection for them; and if they were not able to obtain it, they would do what is seriously proposed by many people with regard to the Salmon--they would do all they could to exterminate them, rather than continue to act as brood hens to hatch chickens for other men's eating.
Then take the annual close time and the pretended compensation it offers in the two months' rod-fishing (September and October). After the nets have been withdrawn, what is it worth? Or, what is the value of black fish full of spawn? They cannot be sold; they are not fit to eat; the spawn has nearly arrived at maturity, and the only value the fish has is in the spawn, which is potted and sold in many instances by the poacher who kills the fish. He deserves no other name, whatever may be his rank or station.
Again, in the 21st section, regulating the weekly close time, it is enacted "That any person acting in contravention of this section shall forfeit all the fish taken by him, and any net or movable instrument used by him in taking the same, and, in addition thereto, shall incur a penalty of not exceeding five pounds, and a further penalty of not exceeding one pound for each fish." But in the 17th section, which regulates the annual close time, though there is a penalty for the contravention and forfeiture of the Salmon so taken, there is no forfeiture of nets and implements. You will no doubt remember how this worked when the watchers took a net and boat, near Preston, last season, after the setting in of the annual close time. How the owner of the net and boat came to claim them, on the pretence that the net had been stolen from the bank, where it had been left to dry, although his own men were the parties who were so illegally using them.
Minimum penalties.--I see no mention of them in the new bill, although it is notorious that many magistrates have fined convicted poachers in the penalty of a farthing or a shilling. What is this but an encouragement to do so again?
Close time for Trout.--This is greatly needed in Salmon rivers, as it is well known that many a poacher pretends to be fishing for Trout when he is looking after Salmon. This is doubly needed when the Salmon ascend the small tributaries to spawn.
The right of way for water bailiffs.--There is no clause or section in the new bill giving the right of way on the banks of Salmon rivers to duly authorized persons without their being deemed guilty of trespass. But there is one by which they are permitted to examine weirs. There is on my part no objection to this examination, but why are millowners stigmatized by being subjected to exceptional legislation? Are not the gamekeepers of gentlemen who have many miles of river subject to no surveillance on the part of the water bailiffs as likely to act illegally as the servants of the millowners? Let both be watched with equal care, and I do not mind how vigilant the watching may be; but I do object to being made the object of special and exceptional legislation. The tax ought to be upon nets and rods and other implements in proportion to their value. But if a tax is laid on the extent of the fishery, we may bid adieu to voluntary subscriptions.
In conclusion, if Mr. Eden comes into this district, I think it ought to be distinctly intimated to him that no bill would be satisfactory to the upper proprietors which did not give them a greater interest in the increase and improvement of rivers. There are three ways of doing this. The mesh of the Salmon net might be enlarged from eight to twelve inches round. This would allow grilse to pass, and fill the river with breeding fish. Or, secondly, the weekly close time might be extended so as to include Friday as well as Saturday afternoon and Sunday. Or, thirdly, the annual close time for net and rod fishing might commence a month earlier than at present; say net fishing to close on the 1st of August, and rod fishing on the 1st of October. Any of these measures would give the upper proprietors a much better supply of fish than they now have. They all, I think, deserve consideration. One thing at least is certain, that unless the upper proprietors have a better share of the fish than they have at present, they will soon cease to take an interest in their preservation.
To Colonel J. Wilson Patten, M.P.
* * * * *
LOW MOOR, _10th January_, 1865.
MY DEAR SIR,--I shall be very glad if I can induce you to read my opinions on the Salmon question. It is one which I think may become of even national importance, if properly managed. But the sad tinkering it has hitherto received in the nine hundred and ninety-nine Acts of Parliament wholly or partly devoted to the subject makes me almost hopeless about future legislation. Yet it seems to me that the only way to greatly increase the breed of Salmon is so simple and obvious, that its not having been adopted long since can only be accounted for by supposing that all the parties interested in the matter are like the man in the fable, who killed the goose that laid the golden eggs.
Hitherto the law has never properly recognized the claims of the upper riparian proprietors. These men have all the trouble and expense of rearing and protecting the young fish, whilst the owners of estuary fisheries, men who never lift a hand nor spend a penny in taking care of the brood, take above ninety per cent. of the grown Salmon when in season; and even then think they are hardly used. How can it be expected that the upper proprietors should be very earnest in their protection of fish from which they derive little or no benefit, merely acting the part of brood hens and hatching the chickens for the benefit of other people?
In June, 1769, 3,384 Salmon and Salmon Trout were taken at a single haul of the net in the Ribble, near Penwortham. Now the sea is as wide, and, for anything we know to the contrary, as capable of feeding them as it was a hundred years ago; and the rivers are as capable of breeding and rearing them now as they were at that time; and therefore I do not see why, if proper steps were taken, they should not be as abundant now as they were then.
If we take a sheep or a bullock, and to his first cost add the rent of the land on which he has pastured, and something for insurance and interest on capital, the transaction is not a very profitable one in the long run. But in the case of the Salmon, we send a little fish down to the sea which is not worth a penny, and he remains there, paying neither rent nor taxes, neither gamekeepers' nor bailiffs' wages, costing nothing to anyone, until he returns to the river, worth ten or twenty shillings, as the case may be. Surely this is a branch of the public wealth that deserves sedulous cultivation.
I think with you that the Calder can never become a Salmon river, so long as manufactories flourish on its banks, and it is not desirable that it ever should become so at their expense; but even in the Calder (and its tributaries) a little care would prevent immense mischief. Some people at Church, a few years ago, very carelessly pushed a quantity of poisonous matter into the Hyndburn brook, and the first thunderstorm that followed carried it down the Calder into the Ribble, and poisoned all the fish between Calder foot and Ribchester. Take another instance of carelessness in the Ribble, the emptying of the gas-holder tank at Settle, which when turned into the river killed nearly all the fish between that town and Mitton. Several other instances occur to me, but these two are sufficient to show the great mischief occasioned by avoidable neglect and carelessness. Such mischief should not be perpetrated with impunity.
The act of 1861 was very good as far as it went, notwithstanding some oversights; but it did not go far enough. It did not give to the upper riparian proprietors such an interest in the fish as they are entitled to, nor is the interest they now have sufficient to induce them to exert themselves in the preservation and increase of the Salmon as they might and would do if such additional stimulus were given to them. The law now is, that no nets shall be used in the taking of Salmon between twelve o'clock at noon on Saturdays, and six o'clock on Monday mornings. That is, forty-two hours per week. But in the Ribble, as a rule, we never see seasonable Salmon until May. Now from that time to the 1st of September, is, say sixteen weeks, and at forty-two hours per week (the length of the weekly close time) this gives twenty-eight days during which time the fish may pass up the river without interruption; but this is by no means the true state of the case. Everyone conversant with the habits of Salmon knows that they never ascend rivers except when they are in a state of flood; and in average summers, partly owing to droughts, and partly to the rapid evaporation and absorption of moisture by vegetation, these twenty-eight days may fairly be reduced by two-thirds, to give the true time allowed for the ascent of the fish. But say ten days, which are supposed to give an adequate supply of fish to a hundred miles of river,--the extent of the Ribble and its Salmon-breeding tributaries. Is it surprising that the upper proprietors are not satisfied with this state of things? It would be surprising if they were content with such a cheeseparing allowance.
When the bill of 1861 was before the House of Commons, I had an opportunity (indirectly) of suggesting to the late Sir George Cornewall Lewis the propriety of a considerable extension of the weekly close time. He replied, "You might as well propose to shoot partridges only three days a week, as to restrict the netting of Salmon to only three days." With all due deference to such an authority, there is no analogy between the two cases. But if partridges had all to migrate and return before they could be legally shot, and had, like Salmon, to come by one road, and if, like them, ninety per cent. of them became the prey of men who had neither bred nor fed them, I fancy the sportsman who reared them would want some restrictions placed on their being shot by men who had not spent a farthing in breeding and protecting them, but who took the lion's share in their appropriation.
I saw Lord Derby on the subject last spring. He had, however, so little time at his disposal that he could only give me a few minutes. He said a good deal must be allowed for vested interests. I said, "My Lord, I am a manufacturer. When the Ten Hours Bill was passed, manufacturers were deprived of one-sixth of their fixed capital at a stroke, and had not a farthing allowed for their vested interests; nay, more, that measure involved the destruction of machinery which had cost millions. All this was done on grounds of public policy. And is not the Salmon question one of public policy? If, as I suppose, the measure I advocate produced a great increase in the breed of Salmon, the estuary fisheries would be the first to profit by it. They are the first on the river. Indeed, the stake nets in the estuaries are taking fish daily in times of drought, when fish will not ascend the river at all."
In 1859 we had not a fresh in the river between the 10th of April and the 1st of August. And last year we had only a few days of flood between the beginning of May and the 31st August, when close time (for nets) commences.
I have said above that only ten days per year are allowed for the supply of fish to the upper proprietors. I may be told that they have two months (September and October) in which they are allowed to angle for them. True, but what are they worth? They are not allowed to be sold, they are not fit to eat, the fish are black (or red), the milt and spawn nearly at maturity, and the only temptation they offer is to the poacher (who often pots the roe as a bait for Trout); and he is a poacher, whatever his rank or station, who will kill an October fish when full of spawn.
Last year, at my suggestion, a meeting of gentlemen interested in Salmon fisheries was convened at Worcester, during the meeting there of the Royal Agricultural Society, and a number of suggestions were made, and resolutions were come to, which were intended to serve as a basis for the desired alterations in the Salmon Bill of 1861. I have no memoranda to which I can now refer, but the most important, according to my recollection, were the following:--The extension of the weekly close time; the annual close time to be extended to Trout; a right to be given to all conservators and water-bailiffs, duly appointed, to pass along the banks of Salmon rivers without being deemed guilty of trespass; a tax on fishing-nets, rods, and implements, to defray the expenses of protecting the rivers from poachers.
The Commissioner of Salmon Fisheries, Mr. Eden, has been convening meetings of gentlemen interested in Salmon rivers at Chester, Conway, York, and various other places, to explain the provisions of the bill which Government introduced at the end of last session and intend to bring forward again. I have not attended any of these meetings, but expect he will be at Whalley or Preston shortly, when we shall hear what he has got to say. The new bill, as printed last year, does not embody any of the suggestions of the Worcester meeting; but as I learn from private sources, Mr. Eden, at the various meetings he has lately attended, has thrown out various suggestions, some of which are highly objectionable.
For instance, he suggests that the magistrates in quarter sessions assembled shall have the power to appoint conservators, and that the conservators shall have the power to expend all the money raised by subscription in having water-bailiffs to put up fish- ladders, commencing actions at law in certain cases; and if the subscriptions are not adequate to defray all these expenses, that they (the conservators) shall have the power to levy a rate in aid on the riparian proprietors.
I cannot see how this can be made to work equitably. If the rate be laid on the extent of frontage to the river, one man may have a great extent of no value for fishing purposes, another may have only one pool, so conveniently formed and placed for netting that he will be able to catch ten times as many fish as the other. Then how are the fisheries in the estuary and just above tideway to be valued? They probably take ninety per cent. of all the seasonable fish. Will they be willing to pay ninety per cent. of the rate?
Again, the college at Stonyhurst claims a right of _several fishery_, both in the Ribble and the Hodder. That is, they exercise a right to fish in both rivers, where they have no land, and they exercise this right so freely that they take more fish than all the other upper proprietors added together. If, then, the tax is laid on the extent of frontage to the rivers, these reverend gentlemen would escape entirely, so far as the right of _several fishery_ extends, and would only pay the rate on their own extent of frontage.
Again, the new bill does not embody the suggestions of the Worcester meeting as to the right of way for the water-bailiffs; but according to Mr. Eden's comment upon it at Chester and elsewhere, a strict surveillance is to be kept on weirs, to which the water-bailiffs are to have free access. Personally I have no objection to this, provided the water-bailiffs are allowed free access to the banks of the river elsewhere; but I have a strong objection to be made the subject of offensive exceptional legislation. Are not gamekeepers as likely to need looking after as mill-owners?
Again, the bill does not touch on minimum penalties. This it ought to do, for in some districts (Wales, for instance) there is a strong animus against all attempts at preserving the Salmon, and notorious poachers, duly convicted of offences against the act of 1861, in some instances have been fined a shilling, in others a farthing.
To W. H. Hornby, Esq., M.P.
[The end]
Thomas Garnett's essay: Artificial Propagation Of Fish