78 Spinning for Mahseer. CHAP. v. 



may not be so much noticed and appreciated by man, because exhibited 

 under the water, an element with which he is necessarily less con- 

 versant than with earth and air. 



Fish have a brain, why then should they not use it, though it is not 

 as heavy as Cuvier's or Byron's or Thackeray's? It has even been 

 suggested that there is a comparison in the weight of brain and in- 

 telligence of different fish.* 



Why is it you use a transparent, almost invisible, material like 

 silkworm-gut to attach to your hook ? Why do not you use whipcord 

 or string? It would be both stronger and cheaper. Why! because 

 the fish is observant, would notice it, would conclude, would think^ aye 

 think, there was something wrong, and would not be such a fool as to 

 take your bait. 



Not to multiply examples too much, how is it that the trout in a 

 much-fished river are much shyer than in less-frequented waters, and 

 require finer tackle and better fishermen to catch them ? They are not 

 really shyer of anything but man, they are not less greedy of food than 

 they were, but if anything the reverse, because of their fewer oppor- 

 tunities of feeding ; they are only more discriminating, more educated, 

 more intelligent. They have learnt to distinguish between an artificial 

 fly and a natural one ; they recognise the figure and the shadow of a 

 fishing man, and dash away ; while they feed securely on in presence of 

 the ox grazing on the bank. They may not be a " cooking animal " 

 like you and me, but they are thinking animals all the same, and no 

 fools either, and if we wish to do anything with them we should not 

 take them for anything but intelligent beings. If you do, and only then, 

 shall we be inclined to think there is some sense after all in Johnson's 

 well-known definition of the angler, " a stick and a string with a worm 

 at one end and a fool at the other," albeit the learned man spake it in 

 ignorance. 



I repeat, again, the fish at least is no fool. Eradicate that idea. 

 Take a new creed. Say rather he is a thinking animal. I might go on 

 multiplying examples to prove it, but I should weary you. Pray do not 

 breathe a word about reason and instinct, or I shall have to begin again 

 and write a whole chapter on that well-worn though interesting subject. 



* "The proportionate weight of brain in a Pike as compared with its body, is 

 as i to 1300; in a Shark as I to 2500; in a Tunny, a remarkably stupid fish, as 

 i to 3700." "The Angler-Naturalist," H. Cholmondely Pennell. 



