clxviii 



shows that the supply of fish is abundant, which is all that any one 

 requires, and Nature in these matters, if left alone, keeps the balance 

 even, and resents interference. ([Are irrigation weirs and canals which 

 destroy fish wholesale, as at present constructed, to be deemed natural 

 causes ? If not, why is inactivity recommended ?] It is presumed the 

 crocodiles consume alike the rapacious kinds of fish, and those that are 

 not rapacious ; if, then, they are destroyed, the rapacious fish lose a great 

 enemy, and their increase being unchecked, they must prevail against 

 those kinds that are not rapacious, and this latter class happens to in- 

 clude mahaseer, ruhoo, mullet, and the choicest kinds of the river pro- 

 duce. The crocodiles had better be left alone." fThe remark that it appears 

 absurd to kill crocodiles requires attention. Some reporters are opposed 

 to it, because of their usefulness as river scavengers, or the cost which 

 would be entailed by offering rewards for their being killed, but 

 this is the first time that their destruction has been deprecated on the 

 ground that they assist in the conservation of fish, because they kill 

 the rapacious as well as the non-rapacious sorts, and that if they 

 did not do so, the former would rapidly preponderate. One little 

 fact is here overlooked, viz., that both classes of fish are equally 

 used as food, and no reason exists why man should not equally 

 capture either, and thus employ as food what now goes to nourish 

 crocodiles. Also, surely if it would be absurd to kill crocodiles that de- 

 stroy mature fish, it would be equally so to wage war with frogs and 

 paddy -birds, as it cannot be supposed that they discriminate the spawn, 

 whilst they are said to probably destroy far more fish than the croco- 

 diles — thus the absurdity would be increased. Really, here poor Nature 

 also is rather unfairly treated, if she resents interference in killing noxious 

 animals, why are not tigers left alone to keep the balance between man, 

 cattle, and the soil from which they derive their food ? Why do human 

 beings object to poisonous snakes assisting in such laudable undertak- 

 ings ? In fact, epidemic diseases are natural causes or effects, and as yet 

 it has not been generally ruled that they should be permitted to hold their 

 sway, to keep the balance even. Lastly, the assertion, that the mahaseer 

 is not a rapacious fish, does not coincide with the views of fishermen, as 

 live bait are generally most killing in the hands of the sportsman.] 

 Interference "is not required ; it would not be understood ; it would be 

 costly and meddlesome, do harm, and no good at all." " I think his 

 (the Collector of Allahabad) inference has escaped the observation 

 of those officials who have suggested inquiries into these subjects, 

 that if you enlarge the mesh of the nets, so as to allow small fry to 

 escape, the young of the rapacious kinds and their victims both escape 

 to live on each other, so they may as well be caught young." ([Really 

 to carry such an argument to extreme limits, it might equally be urged 

 to poison all the waters ; then all the rapacious fish will be destroyed ; 

 of course the destruction of the others would be overlooked by such 

 advisers.] " If any legislation is required anywhere, it can only be 

 near the sources of our rivers, where weirs are constructed, but even 

 there a weir can do but little harm, and in no river have we more than 

 one large weir, or are likely to have." £ First, the facts here stated are 

 erroneous ; secondly, the argument founded thereon do not appear more 

 correct than the facts. Weirs are of two kinds, irrigation and fishing ones ; 



