ce 



376. But it may be pointed out what is the reason that some of 



the Burmese fisheries are still pretty fully 



Reasons fisheries are not stocke( j even if S ome decrease is reported, 



more depopulated. . S. . , . r * 



especially as throughout that province the 



same rules obtain. I am unable to give the European authorities credit 



for anything that has been done. I could not ascertain that young fish, 



except in some leased fisheries, or religious tanks, were preserved at all. 



I saw those good-natured thoughtless Burmans only I'egarding to-day's 



wants, and in fact, preservation was due to a sparse population, large 



swamps and vast inundated tracts of country, as well as the impetuosity 



of the current in the main rivers. Assuming the census returns to be 



correct, the demands for fish must have been yearly becoming greater, 



for, with an augmented fish-eating population, an increased supply must 



be a self-evident necessity. This has probably been met by additional 



methods of capture. Weirs, not permitted by the Burmese, seem to 



have been allowed by the British, until every outlet is now choked 



by them, and the fish fry are captured by the whole population. Now, 



the increased supply must have been derived from fisheries previously 



insufficiently worked, or else due to their being now overworked, 



leaving future years to suffer from diminished supply, consequent upon 



the immature fish being taken to meet present demands. In most places 



it was said that the supply was decreasing ; anyhow, the fisheries 



were being fully worked, and in an economic point of view, I proposed 



the following measures as deserving of consideration. 



377. I do not intend making any remarks upon the mode of 



letting Burmese fisheries, except a proposi- 

 Letting fisheries cheaply not tion « that figh ghould be cons idered the 

 of any use to nsh-consumeis. . n ., . , ~ . 



property of the people, and Government 

 should remit all rents on fisheries." The absolute giving up of fisheries 

 to the people — I think the reports from Bombay, Madras, Mysore, and 

 elsewhere distinctly show — eventuates in their annihilation, unless 

 rules for the preservation of the fish from unnecessary and wasteful 

 destruction are passed and strictly carried out. Where everybody 

 observes that all his neighbours are permitted to capture fish as they 

 like, it is very improbable that he will be exceedingly particular not 

 to kill the young, as a Burmese fisherman, who fully admitted that 

 were the destruction of fry prohibited, such in time must work good, 

 but he remarked he was a yearly tenant and got all he could, whilst 

 if harm is really being done, he supposed Government would have in- 

 terfered. Thus, restrictions would be necessary, and water-bailiffs an 

 indispensable portion of the scheme; whereas, if all waters, except re- 

 served ones, were let, the lessees would have an interest in preserving 

 the immature fish. Likewise a prevalent belief seems to obtain to 

 let the fisheries " as cheaply as possible/' and for the good " of the 

 consumer." Nothing can be a greater fallacy ; the lessee does not sell his 

 spoil below market rate because he obtains his fishery cheaply, any more 

 than the farmer will take less than the market rate for his rice be- 

 cause he lives on an untaxed farm. The difference goes into the pocket 

 of the lessee, not into that of the consumer. To benefit the consumer, 

 the fish should be protected, so that the largest possible amount is 

 obtained from the water, and that is the only true way in which 



