3B2 



FOREST AND STREAM. 



[April 14, li&J. 



THE CANADIAN SALMON RIVERS. 



Editor Forest and Stream: 



Your leading article of March 31 , on the salmon anglers, 

 petition, shows a misapprehension of the true point at 

 issue. You say: 



The Canadian Government leases to Canadian and Americ an 

 cluhs and individuals a nuniber of rivers for salmon fishing. It 

 asks and receives for these privileges a substantial rental. Those 

 who pay the rents are quite reasonable when thoy demand that 

 they shall receive that lor which they pay. * * * The lessees of 

 many streams have naturally come to feel that the Dominion 

 Government is— unwittingly it may be, but none the le=s effectu- 

 ally—perpetrating an imposition on them when it takes their 

 money and gives them no fair return oE fishing opportunities. 



In taking the liberty of correcting your statement, I 

 may, as one of the signers of the petition, perhaps afford 

 some information to my fellow salmon anglers on a sub- 

 ject which does not seem to be very clearly understood, 

 especially by our brethren in the United States. 



The Provincial Governments issue the leases for and re- 

 ceive the rental from salmon angling. They own the 

 salmon rivers, except, of course, where the exclusive 

 right of fishing has been granted by them or where, in 

 Quebec, it belonged to seigniories. The Dominion Govern- 

 ment does not issue any such licenses, and receives no 

 rental from salmon anglers in any way. 



The misconception arises from not understanding that 

 each Province of Canada is, within its own sphere, as in- 

 dependent of the Dominion as each State in the Union is 

 of the United States. Each Province has its own govern- 

 ment and its own legislature. The Government of Canada 

 and the Parliament of Canada deal with matters affecting 

 the Dominion as a whole. 



In 1867, by "The British North America Act," Canada, 

 Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, then in separate 

 colonies, were constituted the Dominion of Canada. And 

 what had formerly been the Province of Canada was 

 divided into the two present Provinces of Ontario and 

 Quebec. 



Before Confederation the Government of the old Prov- 

 ince of Canada owned and leased the ungranted salmon 

 rivers in the Province. From 1867 to 1882 the Dominion 

 Government, continuing this practice and relying upon 

 the clause in the B. N. A. Act which says that the Domin- 

 ion Parliment has the power to legislate on the subject of 

 "Sea Coast and Inland Fisheries," assumed that the 

 ownership of all ungranted fisheries was vested in the 

 Dominion. The Dominion Government accordingly 

 issued licenses for salmon angling in Quebec and New 

 Brunswick Rivers, and maintained fishery overseers and 

 wardens for the protection of what is supposed to be its 

 property as well as for the enforcement of itB laws as to 

 times and modes of fishing. 



In 1882 it was decided by the Supreme Court of Canada, 

 in the case of Robertson vs. The Queen, that the Domin- 

 ion Government's view of the case was wrong. The 

 Court held that the clause in question gives the Domin- 

 ion Parliament the right to legislate on such subjects as 

 are essential to the protection and preservation of the 

 fisheries, e. g., times and modes of fishing, but that the 

 right of property in the fresh- water fisheries is vested in 

 the Provinces or their grantees. That is to say, the 

 owner of the fishery, whether that owner be the Province 

 at large or an individual, holds, enjoys and disposes of 

 his fishing just as he does any other property, according 

 to the law of the Province on such subjects; the Domin- 

 ion Parliament tells him when and how he shall or shall 

 not fish. Since 1882 the Provinces of Quebec and New 

 Brunswick have been disposing of their angling rights. 

 At first some of these were sold outright, but of late years 

 they have merely been leased for a term of years. Nova 

 Scotia and P. E. Island have not done anything in this 

 way. but in those Provinces most of the fishing rights of 

 any value were granted with the land long ago. 



The Dominion Government, however, still assumes to 

 own and ad minster as the public property of the Domin- 

 ion the fisheries in the estuaries and on the coast, regu- 

 lates netting there and issues licenses and leases for such 

 netting. The principle of the decision in Robertson vs. 

 The Queen would seem to show that these estuary and 

 coast fisheries are also Provincial property. The question 

 has not been formally raised between the Provinces and 

 the Dominion, though it has been mooted. Had Mr. 

 Mercier not come to grief his government in the Province 

 of Quebec would probably have attempted to get control 

 of the tidal fisheries as well as of the angling. 



The judgment in Robertson vs. The Queen has been 

 acted upon by the Provinces of Quebec and New Bruns- 

 wick for ten years. The Dominion Government has 

 seemingly acquiesced therein by leaving the Provincial 

 grantees and lessees undisturbed, and by withdrawing 

 their officers except those engaged in supervising the fish 

 hatcheries and the estuary and coast nets. In effect they 

 said to the anglei'S, "You choose to hold from the Province, 

 well, you can protect yourselves or get the Province to 

 protect you." 



Yet it should be clearly understood that this judgment 

 was not a final settlement of the difficulty. If the ques- 

 tion were again raised and carried to the court of last 

 resort, the judicial Committee of the Privy Council in 

 England, that judgment might possibly — I do not say 

 probably — be reversed, and all these Provincial grants 

 and leases of fisheries be declared invalid. On the other 

 hand, as paid above, the Dominion might lose the owner- 

 ship of the net fisheries. 



This view of Robertson vs. The Queen was probably the 

 occasion of the protest by the Canadian Department of 

 Fisheries, which was served upon all lessees of fishing- 

 rights obtained at Quebec in January, 1890. The protest 

 would be evidence that the Dominion of Canada did not 

 surrender any right which it might have or acquiesce in 

 the leasing. 



From the above it will be evident that the Dominion 

 Government might, if it chooses, treat the salmon ang- 

 lers as persons whose titles to fish it questions, in fact 

 denies, and might bid them look to their grantors, the 

 Provincial Governments, to make their holdings worth 

 having. There would not be much comfort to be got 

 from that source. 



It will be equally evident that your view of the case, 

 though well meant, is misleading and could only result 

 in misunderstanding and disappointing. The true ground 

 to be taken, in my humble opinion, is that set forth in the 

 petition, viz., that the request is in the real interest of all 

 concerned, the Dominion at large, the Provinces, the net 

 fishermen and the anglers. It can be proved that there 

 has been serious falling off in the catch of salmon both by 

 netters and anglers; that the main cause of the decrease 



is due to improvident and ill regulated netting; that 

 Canada is thereby in danger of direct and great com- 

 mercial loss; that the large sums annually spent among 

 the people by anglers will also be lost; that the net fisher- 

 men themselves have more to gain from the proposed 

 change than have the anglers, and that the large amount 

 of capital invested in Canada by salmon anglers, which is 

 indeed greater than that of the salmon net fishermen of 

 the two Provinces concerned, deserves consideration and 

 protection. These points and the others which can be 

 made and proved, are quite independent of any question 

 as to who owns the fisheries or who gets the revenues, and 

 if urged properly upon the Minister of Marine and 

 Fisheries will doubtless receive the consideration that he 

 is always ready to give any question within his jurisdic- 

 tion and affecting the public interests in Canada. The 

 subject is a broad one, it involves many considerations 

 and interests which seem at first to conflict. It would be 

 a grave mistake to treat it from any narrow or mistaken 

 standpoint. Thanks to Mr. Blanchard, the salmon 

 anglers have now an opportunity to show that not merely 

 their own sport but the preservation of the salmon fisheries 

 on the Atlantic coast of Canada from extinction is in 

 question, and to secure the thorough consideration of this 

 in a business-like way. Such an opportunity is not easily 

 got and it ought to be made the most of. The way to do 

 that and make the case good is to present facts and figures 

 which cannot be controverted; to meet the objections of 

 ignorance, prejudice and self interest with no partial 

 knowledge or mere opinion, but with a working command 

 of the whole subject; to have a practical acquaintance 

 with the actual conditions of the Canadian salmon fisheries 

 as a whole, both the netting and the angling, and to be 

 able to apply the experience of other countries where 

 these questions have been and are being worked out. 

 Ottawa, Canada, April 4. J. G A. CREIGHTON. 



Editor Forest and Stream; 



You say the petition presented by the anglei'S to the 

 Minister of Marine, to the effect of forcing the net fisher- 

 men to take away their nets three days in the week, is 

 just and reasonable, and you advise the Minister of Marine 

 and Fisheries to comply with their request. 



I am sorry I cannot agree with you no more than I 

 could with Mr. D. H. Blanchard, representing the cause 

 of the anglers. The reason on which I base my opinion 

 I have already given in a letter published in the issue of 

 the Montreal Star of March 26 last, when I urged the 

 Honorable C. H. Tupper to adopt a course totally in op- 

 position to that counselled by you. 



Yours is a serious, weighty, well-informed and ably- 

 •published newspaper, but it seems, on this occasion, to 

 have gone on the wrong track. I quote your article of 

 March 31 last: 



The Dominion Government leases to Canadian and American 

 clubs and individuals a number of rivers for salmon fishing. It 

 asks and receires for these fishing privileges a substantial rental. 

 Those who pay the rent are quite reasonable when they demand 

 that they shall receive that for which they pay. 



This argument crumbles at the outset, inasmuch as all 

 fishing privileges enjoyed in the tidal parts of rivers are 

 rented by the Provincial governments, and by the 

 riparian owners in any other part; nay, more, a great 

 many rivers in the Provinces of Quebec and New Bruns- 

 wick are the exclusive property of amateurs and the 

 central government does not derive the least benefit from 

 that source. 



You go on to say: "As a matter of fact, the salmon 

 have been decreasing and the fishing has been growing 

 poorer and poorer." 



Although the decrease of salmon found in our rivers is 

 not so great as alleged by the petitioners, let us, for the 

 sake of reasoning, say that angling is not so successful as 

 it was ten years ago. Does this militate against net fish- 

 ing? I have already denied it, and again I say, no. 



It stands to reason that if net fishermen were allowed 

 to fish but four days in the week a greater quantity of 

 salmon would go up our rivers, but this would uselessly 

 ruin an industry by which thousands of persons get their 

 living, and which figures in our export trade to the 

 amount of three millions of dollars. 



It is knowingly I use the term "uselessly ruin," because 

 in net fishing is not found the chief cause of the evil they 

 want to stamp out. It is found first in the poaching going 

 on every year in our salmon rivers, in spite of officials 

 generally well paid to guard against it, but more or less 

 faithful and watchful in the fulfilment of their duties; 

 second in the fact that all anglers are not sportsmen in 

 the real meaning of the word. Many of them, in order 

 to make money, allow persons often unfettered by notions 

 of what is right to fish in our rivers very late in the sea- 

 son, to track salmon mercilessly, several miles from the 

 shore, and even catch them in their spawning places. I 

 speak here with a full knowledge of the case. And how 

 many other reasons might be brought forward to account 

 for the decrease of salmon in our rivers. The heavy rains 

 in fall, an early shove of ice, the floating of wood, the 

 pollution of the water by refuse thrown in it, all this 

 seems purposely to be forgotten by those who want to 

 make a stronger case against the poor net fisherman who 

 is less guilty than many others. 



I strongly favor the protecting of salmon fishing or any 

 other. It is necessary. But I would like to see justice 

 meted out equally to all. Let salmon nets be made the 

 subject of strict regulations with regard to their shape, 

 let trap nets be forbidden, not increased. All this I en- 

 tirely approve of. But let angling be restricted by equiv- 

 alent measures; let it not be allowed to kill salmon in the 

 places where they spawn, after the net fisherman has 

 left them a free passage. Above all, let poaching be put 

 down by every available means. 



You further say: "This petition is not a call to the 

 feelings but to common sense. It is just and reasonable 

 and ought to be granted." 



It is for this very reason that it clashes with reason and 

 common sense that I oppose it, as will all those who are 

 at all versed in the matter and wish to treat it in a dis- 

 interested manner; and therefore, the Minister of Marine 

 and Fisheries is bound to overlook the prayer contained 

 in it. L. Z. Jong as, M. P. for Gaspe. 



Ottawa, April 5, 1892. 



[Our error was an inadvertent confounding of the 

 jurisdiction of Dominion and Provincial authorities. 

 But this in no wise affects the claim that the petition 

 asks only for what is wise and just and essential to the 

 ' true interests of all concerned, the Dominion, the 

 Province, the angler and the net fisherman.] 



CHICAGO AND THE WEST. 



IFrom a Staff Correspondent.'] 



CHICAGO, 111., April 9.— The meeting for organiza- 

 tion of the State Fish League, to be held at Spring- 

 field next Wednesday, April 13, promises to be fairly 

 well attended, i f postal card promises count for ought. 

 There are at date twenty-three absolute promises from 

 points outside of Chicago, and many more than that 

 number should be on hand from among the possibilities 

 and uncertainties. 



Warden Buck, who was sent down the Kankakee River 

 on another trip since the raid on the nets at English Lakes 

 reports that the case against Brown, one of the offenders, 

 is now disposed of. Mr. Dennis, the State Fish Commis- 

 sioner, agreed to waive fine provided Brown would per- 

 mit the destruction of the nets. The latter were burned 

 by Brown's consent. This was the LaPorte county case. 

 The case against Auge, in Stark county, went before a 

 justice and Auge was fined $20 for having nets in posses- 

 sion. The case for setting nets and taking fish is before 

 the grand jury, Buck as a principal witness. An inves- 

 tigation of the river from Mak-saw-ba Club up to the B. 

 & O. bridge disclosed no nets, but three more were found 

 in English Lake. Warden Buck naively remarks: 

 "Auge says he is going to fish, but I don't think he will." 



The Kankakee River is very high, as indeed are all our 

 streams, by reason of the recent extraordinarily heavy 

 rains. The pickerel are working in the shallow water, 

 and many are being speared. Mr. O. M. Harlan writes 

 me from Momence as follows: 



"At the present time there is a great deal of spearing 

 going on here. I have reported several cases to your as- 

 sociation, but nothing was done. I do not feel it my duty 

 to incur expense in having these parties apprehended 

 when there is an association backed with the necessary 

 funds to prosecute offenders. Every night a dozen or 

 more lights are to be seen along the river, and as to fish 

 being speared, there is no doubt. The members of the 

 Kankakee Association do not molest nor remonstrate 

 against violation. It is an easy matter to make arrests." 



Mr. Harlan also sends me a local paper item in regard 

 to a 191b. pickerel alleged to have been taken on hook and 

 line at Momence last week by Parish Logan, but assures 

 me that the fish was really speared, as he heard the man 

 say so. 



All this is unfortunate, of course, but I do not think Mr. 

 Harlan should be too impatient with the Association. 

 There will be done only what can be done, and that is 

 everything, of course. At present the limited fund of the 

 association is being applied along the upper part of the 

 Kankakee, in the country which furnished most of the 

 funds. In a short time if there is any money left, Warden 

 Buck will drop down the river and look after a few of the 

 spearers. 



In the Fox Lake country the waters are out of bank 

 and channel. A gentleman lately back from Grass Lake 

 says he never saw so many pickerel as he did along the 

 shallows of the overflow from that lake. The natives 

 were shooting and spearing them by hundreds. Where 

 is Warden Jeff Smith? 



Earnest and even petulant complaints in regard to the 

 tremendous destruction of game fish on the Kankakee at 

 Aroma have just come into my hands through Dr. Bart- 

 lett, of the Illinois Commission. These are chiefly from 

 the Indianapolis Club, with quarters at this point, which 

 is only eight miles below Momence. The illegal netters 

 are known and help is wanted. As usual, the local men 

 are afraid and the local club men are shy about $35 

 apiece, as usual, by way of practical getting at the 

 trouble. Let these timid local men and these bold club 

 men raise one-fourth of the necessary fund, and the Kan- 

 kakee Association will supply the balance and send a 

 man down who will jerk their nets and netters for them. 

 Money talks. Cash has a pleasant sound in its voice. I 

 do not notice this sound in the wail from Aroma, neither 

 the harsh grating noise of even a little bit of sand. 



A trip down the Kankakee to the mouth is needed very 

 much. The fishway at Kankakee is reported to be not 

 working. It is said that the grating across the top is only 

 Hin. in siz<?. 



Some bass have already been taken on the fly on the 

 lower Kankakee. A few bass have been taken in the Fox 

 Lake chain on bait. The high water has come at just the 

 right time, for the warm weather has unquestionably 

 started the run of bass. We would have good angling 

 this spring and summer, if the fish were given a chance. 



Mr. Charles ISorris, traveling agent of the Kankakee 

 Line, is formulating plans for an early trout trip into the 

 wilds of Wisconsin, probably April 16, 



Mr. A. C. Ely, one of the most enthusiastic and widely- 

 traveled anglers of Chicago, has gone to the Castalia 

 Stream,pf Ohio for some trout fishing. Mr. Ely had only 

 been one day back from Florida, where he spent the 

 winter. In Florida he had the exciting experience of 

 being towed a mile or so by a huge devilfish, into which 

 he put sixteen bullets from a .45 without much visible 

 eff ect, although the creature was finally landed. 



Fishing in Creve Coeur Lake and other waters near St. 

 Louis has begun, and some good catches have been made, 

 mostly of croppies. 



Mr. Arthur Woods, of Grand Rapids, Mich., writes me 

 that Mr. D. F. Sweet, of that city, has perfected an elec- 

 tric motor so compact as to be easily applied to fishing 

 boats, and that he expects to have a boat so fitted. 



The first annual meeting of the Chicago Fly-Casting 

 Club will be held at the Grand Pacific Hotel, parlor A, 

 Monday next, April 11, at which time many interesting- 

 questions will come up, among others that of adopting a 

 complete set of rules for competitions. This was touched 

 upon last week. An esteemed contemporary published 

 at this city also has touched upon this, and that with no 

 light hand. The e. c. in question thinks it doesn't matter 

 whether the reel is above or below the hand in fly-fishing. 

 The e. c. also gravely asserts that success in fly-fishing 

 depends much upon the "insulation of the fly and angler 

 when on the water." This leaves us in some doubt, inas- 

 much as it does not state whether or not the angler 

 should be insulated when off the water. The e. c. is 

 evidently trying its be3t to get at it, however, and that is 

 the main thing. Instance where it speaks of "imbuing" 

 the fly with motion. It might be easier to imbue it with 

 a little cochineal dye, or maybe even plain shoe blacking, 

 but of course, if a fellow wants to "imbue'* a fly with 

 motion, he ca n try. E. Hough, 



The New York Fish Commission has authorized the net J 

 ting of pickerel from Meacham Lake. 



