of the Fishery Board for Scotland. 



91 



very badly. Grilse and sea trout throughout the country were practically 

 a total failure last year. 



Some years ago I had occasion to remark upon the decline of grilse as 

 compared with salmon. " In the early part of last century, in the Tweed, 

 for instance, from records of catches at Berwick, which 1 have had the 

 opportunity of examining, it is clear that the take of grilse in the Tweed 

 alone was at times a hundred times greater than the present-day catch for 

 the whole of Scotland, and that in a period of twenty years it never fell 

 below a figure 30 times as great as the present-day catch of the whole of 

 Scotland. 



" The ratio between grilse and salmon has enormously declined from what 

 it used to be. Without lambs one cannot expect to have sheep, and without 

 grilse one cannot expect to have salmon." Some have suggested the possibility 

 that, though we do not find many grilse on our coasts or in our rivers, they 

 are in existence in the open seas, and that the young fish are more and 

 more inclined to remain amongst the herring fry than formerly ; in other 

 words, that the habits in the sea are changing. If we had greatly increased 

 catches of older fish, I could view this supposition with more favour. The 

 more reasonable supposition is simply that we have got into the habit of 

 catching too many grilse, and that they are not in existence in the same 

 numbers, either on the coast, in the rivers, or in the open sea. Salmon 

 scale research shows that the fish which as par and smolts remain only -a 

 short time in fresh waters before their first migration, tend to remain long 

 in the sea, and vice versa. Nevertheless, the great majority of our smolts 

 migrate when two years old, and therefore the great majority of our adult 

 fish are not likely to behave differently than their ancestors have done in 

 the past, unless it can be proved that the smolts of the past migrated most 

 freely at other ages. The real question we are up against seems to me to 

 be purely one of scarcity. 



I would respectfully ask that this matter be seriously considered. 

 Salmon is an important and highly nutritious food. Under the war con- 

 ditions which have been existing salmon is not more expensive than many 

 ordinary foods, and it takes no trouble to rear. The spawning stock has 

 simply to be protected and the resulting harvest gathered. There is no 

 reason why salmon in Scotland should not be once more comparatively 

 cheap ; I would venture to say as cheap as the war time prices of haddock 

 and cod ; while in the matter of nutriment salmon is pre-eminent, especially 

 if the fish be taken from the sea or estuary before its food value has 

 deteriorated in fresh water. 



It is not readily possible to increase the amount of netting. Rather is 

 it advisable, if possible, to restrict in some way the capture of grilse. But 

 it should be quite possible ultimately greatly to increase the quantity of 

 salmon taken by the existing nets. 



In this connection it is very important to recollect that at the present 

 time we are indebted almost exclusively to the sportsman and the river 

 proprietor for the protection of our stock of salmon. We have not adopted, 

 in this country, the policy of allowing the netsman to catch as much as he 

 can in almost any locality, and to rely on artificial hatching for the upkeep 

 of the stock. We have magnificent natural spawning grounds in our 

 Scottish rivers — although some of them might be made more readily 

 accessible — and we prefer to rely upon the process of nature for the 

 r.eplenishment of the stock. This means the protection of our spawning 

 fish, and the District Boards to whom this duty is assigned are exclusively 

 composed of proprietors of salmon fisheries. But I should like to insist 

 that the real interest of the salmon fisheries as a whole is common to nets- 

 men and rod fishers alike. The Scottish Act of 1862 (25 & 26 Yict. cap. 



