cc 



376. But it may lie pointed out wliat is the reason tliat some ol" 



tlie Uurmese (islierics are still pretty fully 

 ncnsons fisbciie, .„o not gtocked, even if some decrease is reported, 



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 regarding 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 tlie main rivers. Assuming the census returns to be 

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

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

 be a self-evident necessity. Tiiis 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 sutler irom diminished supply, consequent upon 

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

 it was said that the supply was decreajing ; 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 fisberies cheaply not ^j^,^ » y,^j. fl^j^ g,,Qy,j ^^ considered the 

 of auv U30 to nsb-consumcrs. i p ii 1 1 /-i 



property ot the people, and (jovernment 



should r«mit 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 tliat all his neighbours are permitted to capture fish as they 

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

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

 were the destruction of fry ])rohibited, such in time must work g'ood, 

 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-baililfs 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 cheiiply as possihle," and for the good " of the 

 consumer." Nothing can be a greater fallacy ; the lessee docs 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 ditlerence 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 watei-, and that is the only true way in which 



