Ixxi 



are taken in fine-meshed casting nets. The total prohibition of fishing near 

 the auicuts (weirs) does not appear necessary to the Board, although it 

 might be well that a sufficient time should be allowed to enable the fish 

 to ascend the ladders (where such are provided) unmolested, 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 prevented, and that a stop should be put to the poisoning of water 

 and drainage of tanks for the purpose of catching fish. In a further 

 report of proceedings (dated December 18th, 1869), " the Board cannot 

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

 on an extensive enquiry amongst the fresh-water fishermen ; also the 

 Collectors of the Godaveri District and of Coimbatore say six months : the 

 Collector of the Kistna and the Head Assistant Collector of Kurnal 

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

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

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

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

 question, " How 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 which are let ?" and it is to be presumed, that 

 before replying, an enquiry was made, how long do nets last ?] in para, 

 40 that fishing nets only last a year. At least the Board would 

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

 for four as the 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 [This appears to be a 

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

 November 5th, 1859, being unable 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 Sub- Collector whose 

 acquaintance 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 

 beg to suggest that the application of these rules either to Malabar (see 

 para. 167) or South Canara (see para. 168) should be suspended. 

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

 upon Mr. Thomas' report, on the result of one year's experimental trial of 

 >rotecting 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 with what are at present 

 free industries, and deprecate the conversion of measures attended alike 

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

 of an important article of food, into a means of raising revenues for the 

 meral purposes of the State/' [The Government of India observed, 

 jtobcr 2nd, 1871, " The real point for consideration is this : Fishes, it' 



