56 



Apprnd i(r>> fo Sivtccnth An/n'fd Report 



*' gain, ciud as the tisli-passes of the present (hiy will, it is hoped, show 

 "an impi'ovement on those of the past, so we may trust that our 

 "successors will profit by our mistakes and produce better work than 

 " our own." 



If we turn to the Thirty-fifth Annual Report on Salmon Fisheries 

 (England anil Wales), we shall find, facing page 14, plans and sections 

 of the fish-passes which the deai-ly- bought experience above referred to 

 has resulted in producing. It will be seen that the ladder form, which 

 found favour in the early days of fish-passes, when the matter was but 

 little understood, is discarded, and the form of fish-pass which I have 

 ventured to i-ecommend, and of the efiectiveness of which i have had 

 personal experience, is adopted in its place. Reference to these plans 

 will show tliat a pool-pass as now iniderstoixl is very difterent to that 

 designe<l 1)V Mr. Stevenson in 1871, which was in use at Craigo up to 

 1881. 



It may be objected that a pool fish pass is not the form of pass con- 

 templated in the bye-law, and that the rules there laid down indicate 

 that all that is necessary to meet the i-ecpiirements of the bye-law is ji fish 

 ladder after the Fors}^h system. This view would seem to be borne 

 out to a certain extent by the note appended to sec. 6 of Schedule G. 

 On the other hand, it could be argued that the dimensions laid down in 

 sec. 6 are the minimum dimensions, below wliich no pass may be con- 

 structed, and that the general provision as to every pass or ladder 

 affording a fi-ee passjige to fish at all times when there is water enough 

 in the river to supply the ladder is to meet the veiy wide difi'erence 

 which must necessarily exist in the form and dimensions of fish passes 

 constructed at dams of dift'erent heights and shapes ; and, therefore, 

 in order to meet tlie requirements of the byelaw, it is essential that 

 this general provision should be given effect to. This view would 

 seem to find support in the decision given in the case of Myers v. Grant. 



If this lattei" view is correct it would seem probable that the court in 

 directing alterations to be made in an inefficient pass would take into 

 consideration the requirements which modern experience has shown are 

 necessary in order to produce an efficient pass. 



llecoiuuieiKla- In conclusion, I would venture to point out that the channel at the 

 tious. ^£ ^Y\e dam on the north side of the pi-esent pass offers facilities for 



the constr-iction of a good pool pass on the lines which I have recom- 

 mended. 1 desiie, liowever, to impress upon those interested in the 

 salmon fishings that it must always be borne in mind that at best a flsli 

 pass is but a makeshift, and that, however good, it can never compensate 

 a fishery for the existence of a dam dyke. The course which would 

 commend itself to me, if a reasonable bargain could be made with the 

 proprietor, is the purchase and removal of the dyke. I venture to re- 

 commend this course as that which would tend most to the development 

 of the capacity of the river for the production of fish, and as that which 

 would be most renuuierative to the proprietors of the rod fishings in 

 the upper watei's. 



MoRPHTE Dam Dyke. 

 The coii.sti iic- In dealing with the state of the Morphie or Kinnaber dam dyke, I 2>io- 

 Dam D*ke ami P^^^ consider (1) the construction of the dam dyke and fish pass; (2) 

 Fish Pass.*^ ^ ^ the state of the bed of the river in the immediate neighbourhood of the 

 dyke ; (3) the complaint as to the volume of water abstracted by the 

 Kinnaber lade ; and lastly, to summarise the conclusions arrived at on 

 these several points. 



