of the Fishery Board for Scotland. 



2o3 



high, and 340 yards long. Four pockets are allowed, each to 

 have a circumference of 30 yards, an ebb arm of 8 yards, and a 

 flood arm of 20 yards. 

 This net I found to extend to 356 steps, to be only 7 feet high, and 



to have only 2 pockets instead of 4. 

 Owing to the height of the bank upon which the net is set, a greater 



height than 7 feet would not now be of any service. 

 With regard to the two Island nets, the certificates refer to 



1st. 1 stake net at or near the centre of a rock opposite certain ruins 

 marked on the Ordnance Survey Sheet on the east shore of the 

 Island of Ardwall or Knockbrex. It extends in an easterly 

 direction almost in a hne for Knockbrex House. It is a range 

 of nets not exceeding 12 feet high and 70 yards long, inclusive 

 of 1 pocket, not exceeding 30 yards in circumference, with an 

 ebb arm of 10 yards and a flood arm of 8 yards. 

 This net I found to be within the hmits prescribed. 



2nd. 1 stake net at or near the Island of Ardwall, starting from a 

 rock about 100 yards from the northern shore, and extending 

 in a northerly direction. It consists of a range of nets not ex- 

 ceeding 12 feet high and 150 yards long. Two pockets are 

 allowed. (1) A pocket not exceeding 30 yards in circumference, 

 with an ebb arm of 10 yards and a flood arm of 8 yards. (2) A 

 pocket not exceeding 30 yards in circumference, with ebb and 

 flood arms of the same dimensions as in (1). 

 This net I found with only one pocket. The length was approxi- 

 mately correct, as also was the ebb arm. The flood arm, how- 

 ever, was not less than 46 yards, instead of 8, and the height of 

 the net I estimated as varying from 16 feet to 18 feet, instead 

 of 12 feet. A remarkable additional feature was present, quite 

 unprovided for in the certificate, in that from the rock at the 

 northern end of the island an arm was run out in a north-easterly 

 direction for 67 yards. 



Pollutions. 



I have already referred to the pollutions in the Forth District, but 1 

 should Uke to state generally that in several other rivers, such, for in- 

 stance, as the Leven at Dumbarton, the Girvan, Doon, Nith, Don, and 

 Tay, complaints are frequent as to injury to the salmon fisheries. Con- 

 joint action seems to be necessary to deal with this matter, and hopes 

 which were for a time raised by the investigations and reports of the Sewage 

 Disposal Commission seem now to have waned. 



Pollutions grow slowly, and are frequently not observed as increasing 

 till they have attained serious proportions, and have become so estabhshed 

 as to be difficult to combat. There is, of course, the great difficulty that 

 to combat a source of pollution is to combat frequently some important 

 industry, but there is no doubt at all that the interests of salmon fisheries 

 are not sufficiently secured by the existing legislative provisions. 



With the great amount of attention which has in recent years been 

 given to systematic purification, the excuse that evils complained of 

 cannot be purified can no longer be considered. At the same time many 

 of our District Fishery Boards are not in a position, financially, to combat 

 so serious a matter. This is so, I imagine, in the case of the Forth Board, 

 for instance. Also, it not infrequently happens that although, by Sec. 55 

 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1889 (52 & 53 Vict. Chap. 50), 

 power to enforce the Pollution of Rivers Act, 1876, is conferred upon 



