4 



Appendices to Twenty -fifth Annual Report 



are certain to be differently affected by the same amount of netting ; 

 that the large river with the wide estuary can stand an amount of 

 netting which would speedily ruin the small river with the con- 

 fined mouth. Each river must be treated on its own merits. But 

 in every case the netting should be so limited as to allow a pro- 

 portion of every run of fish to pass into the comparatively safe 

 haven of the upper river. Only in this way can a river be supplied 

 with stock from both early and late running fish and have its full 

 extent of available spawning ground occupied. Lord Elgin's 

 Commission on Salmon Fisheries reported on this matter as 

 follows : — 



"We are disposed to hold that on every river, and in every 

 " salmon district, there is a point above which the habitual use of a 

 " net becomes injurious to the fisheries of the river. We hesitate 

 " to state a dividing line which could be applied universally. It 

 " has been suggested by the Commissioners on the Tweed, and by a 

 " number of witnesses, that all nets above the tideway should be 

 " removed. . . . But the flow of the tide would not be satis- 

 " factory as a universal rule. . . . We think that justice will 

 " best be done if means are provided for determining the proper 

 " limits in each case after an inquiry on the spot. ... If the 

 " same facilities for netting are permitted in the narrow waters of 

 " the river as on the sea-coast, it becomes impossible to ensure a 

 " fair distribution of fish in all parts of the river. ... In 

 " advising a restriction of netting in narrow waters we may point 

 " out that we are again in accord with the Royal Commission on 

 " the Tweed. We have also no inconsiderable amount of support 

 " from actual experience. , . In the second place, there is 

 " the case of the Aberdeenshire Dee, which is of great importance, 

 " both because it is an experiment which has been carried on for a 

 "number of years — the removal of nets began in 1872 — and also 

 "because it has been made under conditions prevailing generally in 

 " this country. . . . But we may sum up here by stating that 

 " as a result of the operations of this voluntary association all the 

 " nets have been removed from the river to within three miles of 

 " the mouth, and this policy has been followed by an increase of the 

 " value of the fishings from £7000 to close upon £19,000. Moreover, 

 " the increase has been shared by all, as the tacksmen themselves 

 " are the first to admit, the coast fishings having increased from 

 "£6000 to £8050, and the river fishings from £1250 to close on 

 "£11,000. These sums, no doubt, do not represent correlative 

 " numbers of fish, sporting rentals being measured by other con- 

 " siderations, but it cannot be denied that all parties have greatly 

 " benefited." Having thus given expression to the belief in the 

 policy, the Report goes on to follow up the matter by suggestions of 

 a practical kind. " We are of opinion that the work done by 

 " voluntary effort is sufficient to establish the fact that means 

 " should be available for the removal of nets in narrow waters. 

 " But, if so, it is impossible to leave the matter entirely to voluntary 

 " associations. We think that, the point where netting becomes 

 " injurious having been determined in the manner already detailed, 

 " the Local Fishery Boards should be empowered to acquire the 



