Ixxi 



:irot;il;r>n in riiip-mcslicil casting nets. Tiic total pioliiliition of fisliing' near 

 the anicnts (weirs) does not appear necessary to the Board, altliouyb it 

 niiyht be well that a suirieieut time sliould be allowed to enable the fish 

 to ascend the ladders (where such are j)rovided) umnolcstcd, after which 

 the fishing' could be unrestricted. It is very desirable that unfair and 

 wholesale destruction of breeding fish at the anicuts and elsewhere should 

 be ])rovented, and that a stop should bo |)ut to the poisoning of water 

 and drainage of tanks for the pnr]>ose of catching (ish. In a further 

 rejiort of proceedings (dated December 18th, ISGt)), "the Board cannot 

 admit the correctness of Dr. Day's assertion, [ My assertion was based 

 on an extensive enrjuiry amongst the fresh-water fishornien ; also the 

 Gollcdors of the Godavcii District and of Coimbatore say six months : the 

 Collector of the Kistiia and the Head Assistant Collector of Kurnal 

 observe one year's notice will be sudieient : the Collectors of Nellur, of 

 Soiilh Arcot and Madura likewise suggest one year's notice : the Collector 

 of Bcllary that no notice is absolutely necessary, but merely a stipulation 

 in the contract : and these include the wdiole of the answers to the 

 question, " IIow long notice do you consider it would be necessary to give, 

 provided it were deemed advisable to prohibit fishing with very small- 

 meshed nets in waters wdiich are let?" and it is to be ])resumed, that 

 before replying, an entjuiry was made, — how long do nets last ?1 in para, 

 40 that fishing nets only last a year. At least the ]3oard would 

 reconnnend the proposal be so far modified as to substitute three inches 

 for four as tlie limit for the size of the net's mesh, and to exempt casting 

 nets and prawn nets altogether from the restriction. The Board enter- 

 tain some doubts whether the sanction of a legal enactment may not be 

 necessary to empower the Government to issue orders which greatly 

 interfere with the exercise of practices which long custom may have 

 converted into communal rights, (see para. 130) maintainable by a 

 civil action. The Board would also draw the attention of the Govern- 

 ment to the letter from the Collector of Malabar fThis appears to be i» 

 mistake ; it was the Officiating Collector who raised these objections, 

 November .5th, 1850, being imable to see the injuries going on in the 

 fisheries which had been adverted to by the Acting Collector, February 

 12th of the same year, preferring the opinion of a Suh-Gollector whoso 

 accpiaintancc with fish and fisheries does not appear to be very extensive, 

 judging from his letters!, who deprecates the introduction of orders into 

 his district as unnecessary and likely to be highly unpopular, and would 

 lii'g to suggest that the application of these rules either to Malabar (sec 

 para. 107) or South Canara (see para. IGS) should be suspended. 

 In further proceedings (dated July 13tli, 1871) the Board observe 

 upon J\Ir. Thomas' report, on the result of one year's experimental trial of 

 protecting fish in South Canara, my reports on the Madras fresh-water 

 fisheries, their own former proceedings, and the orders of the Madras 

 Government, and continue, " the Board cannot but view with re- 

 luctance the necessity for State interference vviUi what are at present 

 free industries, and deprecate the conversion of measures attended alike 

 in the interests of the peojile and the Government, for the conservancy 

 of an im])oitant article of food, into a means of raising revemics (or tlio 

 general purposes of the State." [The (Jovernmcnt of India observed, 

 October 2ud, 1871, " The real point for consideration is this : — Fishes, if 



