of the Fishery Board for Scotland. 



loa 



Another dam dyke has now been dealt with, viz., that at Dunblane 

 Mill. No gap or fish pass existed at this dyke, nor were hecks to be 

 found in the lade. The dyke was about 5 feet high on an average, and the 

 water in the lade was very seldom used for any milling purpose. On 

 account of this, I recommended in my General Report of 1903 that the 

 lade should be closed and the water turned over the dam dyke for the 

 benefit of ascending fish. 



The Forth District Fishery Board have now had a pass erected at the 

 dyke, but instead of proceeding, as in other districts, to secure the statutory 

 gap in the sill of the weir, the District Board have agreed to a pass which 

 has no proper gap and does not conform to the requirements of the Bye-law 

 (G) of the Salmon Fisheries (Scotland) Act, 1868, which deals with this 

 matter. I desire very specially to call attention to the manner in which 

 it is possible for District Boards to allow this Bye-law to be interpreted. 

 As matters are at present, it seems impossible to exercise proper control 

 over local operations of the kind referred to. 



I am by no means inclined to argue that the type of pass prescribed by 

 the Bye-law to which I have referred is perfect, or that the best interests 

 of the salmon fisheries are served by having a fixed and invariable type 

 of pass at dam dykes ; but one provision which has to be secured in any 

 type of pass if water is to be concentrated in the pass and a reasonable lead 

 given to ascending fish, is that a certain gap shall exist. 



The Bye-law is quite explicit. It reads, after dealing with the breadth 

 of the ladder : " The upper sill shall be not less than 6 inches below the 

 lowest part of the crest of the dam for the whole width of the ladder." 

 The gap may be more than 6 inches, but it must not be less than 6 inches. 

 The requirement of a gap has existed without intermission since The Scots 

 Act, 1696, c. 33. The later Statutes carry on the same general principle. 

 By the Salmon Fisheries (Scotland) Act, 1862, Commissioners were ap- 

 pointed and authorised, inter alia, to make Bye-laws as to " the construction 

 and alteration of mill dams or lades or water wheels, so as to afford a 

 reasonable means for the passage of salmon," and in the later Act of 1868, 

 which has already been referred to, the actual Bye-law governing the matter 

 is appended. The recognised procedure in case of difficulty of enforcing 

 the Bye-law is to make application to the Sheriff under the 29th Section of 

 the Act of 1862. 



Further, the owner of the structure is required to erect the pass, and, 

 in practice, any loss of water consequent upon the presence of the required 

 gap has to be regarded as incidental to the requirements of the Salmon Acts. 



1 am informed that the Forth District Fishery Board are themselves paying 

 for the erection of this pass, and the contempt with which the requirements 

 of the Acts are treated is therefore more marked. With an insufficient 

 gap in the sill of the dyke, the pass is manifestly useless until the river 

 has risen to such a height that fish can ascend the down-stream face of the 

 dyke without the aid of the pass. As a matter of fact, when this new 

 pass is dry, water is still flowing over the dyke and down the mill lade, 

 a condition of things altogether against the spirit of the regulations. The 

 Bye-law requires that the pass shall be " capable of affording a free passage 

 for the ascending fish at all times when there is water enough in the river 

 to supply the ladder." With the ladder built up upon the surface of the 

 dyke, instead of cut into it, the ladder cannot be properly supplied with 

 water. 



I have already stated that in the case of this dyke the water is really 

 of very little use for power. I understand this condition remains un- 

 changed. In past years, a carpenter's circular saw has been occasionally 

 driven, the carpenter being a tenant of the local Gas Co., who hold the 

 water rights. It appears to me that not even this use is now made, and 



