Ill 



4. With reference to the questions issued with my letter of Septem- 

 ber 17th, 1871, the following- is a synopsis of 

 What is the proportion of the t]ie answers reC eived. First, as to the propor- 



general population who consume ,. n l7 7 7 . . 7 A 7 i 



fish p tion of the general, population who would eat 



fish, could they obtain it? Out of 41 native 

 officials who have replied, the following are the figures given— 



Irrespective of these, in 10 ' the majority of the people/ in 5 ' a small 

 proportion/ and in 1 ' none' of population are said to eat fish, but in the 

 last, the reason given is, ' because there are none to eat/ The Mahomedans, 

 except the Sheeas at Jalandur, as a rule do so, unless prevented by local 

 objections (see para. 2) : most of the Hindus in towns or along the banks 

 of large rivers, unless they are Brahmins, whilst the rural population is 

 more averse to it. 



5. How are the local markets supplied with fish ? is a question 



answered by some Tehsildars directly ; by 

 sup L p ne a a JSSSL iusufficie ^ others more indirectly. Seventy-six give de- 



finite answers, which may be thus divided : 

 in 7 tehsils the markets are fully supplied ; in 2 they are moderately so ; 

 in 10 sufficiently only during the cold season; in 1 only during the 

 rains; in 48 insufficiently all the year rouud, and in 8 not at all. In 

 Hushiarpur there are said to be no markets, the people only capturing fish 

 for their own consumption; in 2 tehsils fish are exchanged for grain. 

 Where fish are sold, the price of the better sorts bears the same pro- 

 portion to that of the best mutton, as the price of inferior fish to that 

 of inferior mutton, and varies from one-third that of mutton to an equal 

 price with it. Salt-fish does not find much of a sale. 



6. Have the fish increased, decreased, or remained stationary ? is 



replied to by 78 Tehsildars, an increase being 

 Present state of the fisheries. rep orted by 13, a stationary state by 32, and 



Destruction of breeding fish in j -lqq a £J 



hilly districts. a decrease by 66. A cause ot decrease is 



stated at Delhi to be the Okla weir, which 

 crosses the Jumna near that city, and does not possess any fish pass in 

 it (see para. 43). In the Sialkot Division the wholesale destruction of 

 Mahaseer by means of fixed nets is adverted to in the affluents of the 

 Chenab. ' Colonel Macpherson' observes, that he " can testify to the 

 fisheries in the Ganges and Jumna having deteriorated very greatly in 

 the last eight years. * * One can hardly see fish moving now-a-day, 

 whereas in the years I have mentioued (1861 — 63) we used to hear and 

 see shoals of large mahaseer on the feed, three or four times a day/" 



