44 
THE FISHING GAZETTE 
[January 21, 1893 
society—“The Riparian Owners’Association ”— 
was considering the subject. They also sent in 
their suggestions, hut not one single ^oord did th y 
contain for improving the fishery. Surely it would 
have been a graceful and generous act for them 
to have offered to relinquish soine of their rights, 
or suppo.sed rights, of fishing; especially as the 
fish they catch are mostly reared or preserved by 
the associations. But no ! not only did they not 
assist in the preservation, but they actually asked 
for increased powers of netting, and for leave to 
use nets having a mesh of only a fraction more 
than half the size of those at present allowed. And 
these recommendations have been embodied al¬ 
most verbatim in the proposed bye-laws. Can it 
be wondered at that a storm of indignation has 
been excited in the upper parts of the river !■' 
Let us hope that it may be sufficiently strong to 
ensure the alteration of the rules in question.— 
I am. Sir, yours obediently, 
A Sox OF Fatheu Thames. 
LONDON ASSOCIATIONS. 
Sir, —I heartily support “ Goosequill’s ” plea 
for one representative body for London anglers, 
and trust that he will again refer to and ])ress 
the. subject on the attention of all w'ho indulge in 
the gentle art. But may not a little plain speak¬ 
ing be permitted, if only to secure di.^cussion and 
a moderate statement of the advantages that 
would be derived from such a fusion of capital, 
interest, and experience. If one reason for the 
opposition to this is a fear on the part of the 
leading men of the present twm bodies that they 
might be loft out in the cold by an amalgamation, 
why not start with the understanding that both 
committees should be blended into one, and that 
they should form the one committee of the one 
and undivided body. 
This would result in much less expense being 
incurred in the society, or whatever it might be 
called, enormous power and influence much more 
likely to be impartial in securing waters east and 
west, north and south, as each district, being 
properly represented, could justly claim fair con¬ 
sideration from the governing body. I use this 
term advisedly, but by no means assume that the 
general body of members should have the right 
to suggest and of veto, in other words, govern¬ 
ment by and for the people. 
May I plead that someone generally known, 
with influence, someone to whom anglers can look 
to with respect and confidence, will take this 
matter in hand and do what he can to unite at 
present divided interest.—I am, &c., 
(Gresham.) _ Geo. Chambers. 
FIFTH RYE HOUSE COMPETITION 
Ix Aid of the Axglers’ Bexevolext axd Cox- 
A ALESC EXT IIOME FuNDS. 
Sir, —A preliminary meeting was held at 
Foresters’ Hall on Friday, the 13th inst., when 
the following gentlemen formed a committee; 
Messrs. W. H. Beckett, S. Malby, J. G. Laming, 
R. Ghurney, R. Murphy, E. Clark, C, Watling, 
G. Manninsr, S. Jones, B. Abrahams, Beesley, W. 
J. Wade, G. Norris, J. R. Close, and H. Shead, 
Avith power to add. I shall be very happy to 
meet any gentlemen at the Foresters’ Hall on 
Friday, the 27th inst., at 9.30.—Yours truly, 
S. Malba’, Secretary. 
POACHING ON THE TWEED.—THE REV. 
MR. DRYERRE’S LETTER. 
Dear Sir, —I was astonished to see Mr. 
Dryerre’s argument that “if it is right for rod- 
fisliing to go on until December, it ought to be 
righii for net-fishing. 
As I understand the matter. Parliament has 
imposed on the netsmen a limit which jirevents 
them from ruining their own industry, and has 
at the same time given the proprietors of the 
upper waters, where the breeding takes place, a 
])rivilege which induces them to protect the fish 
for their own sakes. If the nets were not taken 
olf the fishing in the upper Avaters Avould not be 
Avorth protecting. Such salmon as struggled 
through would be massacred on the redds, and 
in a lew years salmon in the Tweed would be a 
thing of the jiast. The netsmen, competing 
among them.'elves, Avere not united enough nor 
unselfish enough to ]nit a limit on themselves, 
and, after all, Avhy should the dwellers at a rivei-’s 
mouth have the Avhole benefit of a river, Avhile 
those persons whose property produced the stock 
of fish that supplied the river Avere to get no 
benefit.® Parliament, therefore, stepped in, and 
imposed on the netsmen a limit, which is an all¬ 
round benefit. It benefits the netsmen by keep¬ 
ing up the supply of fish and by interesting the 
proprietors of the upper Avaters in keeping up the 
stock. It benefits those proprietors by giving 
them a chance of some fish, and by en.abling them 
to let their waters. It benefits the river-side 
dwellers by bringing to them a large influx of 
anglers who cause a good deal of money to 
circulate which Avould otherwise be spent else- 
Avhere. Whether the actual limit chosen be the 
best possible I have not the experience to say, but 
in princiide it seems to me this compromise by 
Act of Parliament is eminently just and salutary. 
—Your.o, &c., _ Val Coxsox. 
Dear Sir, —I have little to say to Mr. Tod’s 
letter. In many points it is supplemental. I 
write from a district, and with only that district 
practically in my mind, where the fi.shing is 
(ihsolutely free to all for miles. The value and 
right of letting is altogether another question. 
It is a ({uestion how early salmon would care to 
come up the Tweed even if the netting did not 
hinder them. But I, for one, would only be too 
delighted if the netting stopped a month sooner 
than it does, to allow us here to get salmon, if it 
would not he a ^cholesale destruction of ova. 
I am a wee bit amused at the ascription of 
ignorance to me because I have not taken a 
“ jiractical and comprehensive view of the ques¬ 
tion.’’ Were it to do any good, I could show that 
his supposed analogy does not run on all fours by 
the suppression of an essential leg. “ If it is fair 
to net at Berwick it is equally fair to net at 
Innerleithen. If, as at Berwick, the law permits 
so doing, which it does at Berwick, otherwise it 
would not be fair.” However, this is neither 
here nor there. 
Rcga’-ding my letter of Jan. 7, I may say that a 
petition is in the Home Secretary’s hands at present 
respecting two who were convicted and imprisoned 
on the bailiff’s Avord. I sent the editor the report, 
cut from the paper. I quote from the petition : 
“The accused were first accosted by the Avater 
bailifi's at Selkir k Station, when they had in their 
possession two salmon and five sea trout. The 
bailiffs accused them of taking the fish with a 
hook used otherwise than as a bait. The bailiffs 
did not see the accused fishing, and there was 
absolutely no evidence against them. Though 
one cf the fish had a hook mark on its side, the 
water bailiff admitted that the fish might have 
been marked first and then caught by accused in 
a perfectly legal manner. But, by the Tweed 
Fisheries Amendment Act, 1859, the proof that a 
fish has been taken in a legal way is thrown on 
the accused, and because the sheriff held that B. 
and S. Tyson had not done this, he, in the absence 
of any proof of their guilt, found them guilty. 
“It is simply impossible for any angler fishing 
alone to do this (I'.e., prove his innocence). I am 
also desired to bring under your notice this point, 
that if a fisher takes a comptinion with him to 
prove he has been fishing legally, the authorities 
can, by their procedure, render this precaution 
useless. J. and B. Tyson had only one rod 
between them. The prosecution had no Avitnesses 
to show that either of them had been fishing. 
The Tysons’ advocate asked that they might be 
tried separately, so that one might give evidence 
in favour of the other. The sheriff refused his 
reijucst, and the Procurator Fiscal, who prose¬ 
cuted, gave reasons for ‘not being fool enough’ 
to charge one of the accused only. Thus these 
iniquitous Tweed Acts throw on the accused the 
proving of his innocence, and the authorities, by 
their procedure, depriA'e him of the only means 
by AA'hich he can prove that innocence.” 
I n ay say that this is an honest statement of 
the evidence, and against such iniquity I am at war 
to the death. If this was the only case, the law 
should be altered, and at once. But it is not. 
There have been many cases of this description, 
but, for all practical purposes, one is enough. 
My name is unfortunate. It is Drvtrre, not 
“Dryens.” 
Thanking iMr. Todd for his comments, and 
trusting, if he is a near neighbour, he may make 
a call when the trout are on the take, I remain, 
JoHX Mei.dri'm Drverre. 
Congregational Manse, Innerleithen. 
RE THAMES ANGLING REPORTS. 
Dear Sir, —The stroke of genius displayed by 
“ B.” in suggesting that the truth can only be 
told by people who subscribe (I suppose Is. per 
annum) to the T.A.P.S., is original. 
I say the fish were not caught, and you seem 
not to be aware that the local paper declines to 
report such nonsense as these statements for the 
future. 
Now if “ B.” can prove to your satisfaction 
that the reports are true, I Avill engage to pay to 
the West London Hosjiital the sum of two 
guineas.—I am, yours truly, 
Castelnau, Barpes, S.W. W. H. Elsmore. 
OPENING OP SALMON FISHING ON 
LOGH TAY. 
Dear Sir, —I inclose report of opening of rod¬ 
fishing on Loch Tay. On the Ifith, on the 
Reserve Avater, IMr. II. E. Broad caught salmon 
lOlb.; on the hotel Avater, IMr. Robin, 2t!li), and 
unfortunately lost another ; Mr. Aitkin, Litter- 
ellan, salmon, 2311). On the 17th, IMr. Aitkin one 
.salmon, 22Mb.; Mr. 'I’lios. Russell, salmon, Ifilb. ; 
on the ReserA'o water, Robson, keeper, one salmon 
Kill).—Yours truly, W. Kxigiit. 
Kenmoro, Perthshire, N.B. 
SPRING SALMON FISHING. 
Sir, —Each angling season I receive from your 
English and Scotch readers ever so many ir.quirie.s 
about good salmon, grilse, and trout fishing in 
li-eland, and especially on the Shannon. Some¬ 
times I am able to tell them of something good, 
and sometimes not. I am in a position now, Iioav- 
ever, to offer any of your readers a splendid 
reach of strictly preserved water in the Shannon 
here at Killaloe, good for salmon and trout. Two 
miles of water, one side of river, room for two or 
three rods. Would be let from Feb. 1 to April 
15. Last spring salmon of 42Mb , 381b., 371b.— 
35Mh., and all weights downwards to 151b. were 
angled on the preserves above referred to. Splen¬ 
did stock of brown trout also. Rent very mode¬ 
rate. Excellent accommodation in private fishing 
lodge, within three minutes of river. 
The journey from London to Killaloe is very 
rapid. In fine, one may leave Euston at 7.30 p.m. 
and be among the salmon at noon next day here. 
Abbey View, Killaloe. S. J. Hurley. 
[Our old correspondent, Mr. Hurley, must take 
the entire responsibility for this glowing descrip¬ 
tion, and Avill doubtless give full information to 
any of our readers who may want it; he Avill also 
remember that our columns are always open for 
the airing of reasonable complaints of disap¬ 
pointed anglers. We are always glad to give our 
readers information, and, above all things, object 
to their being deluded by anything appearing in 
our columns.— Ed.] _ 
THE THRUMPTON WATERS—A CONTRA- 
DIGTION. 
Sir, —Aly attention has been directed to a 
paragraph in your issue of the I4th inst., under 
the head of Provincial Notes, “ From Notting¬ 
ham,” in which it is stated that the Nottingham 
Wellington Angling Society had taken action 
with resard to securing the Thrumpton waters 
from Lady Byron, and that “ it had been stated ” 
that the gentlemen who already hold them, in¬ 
tended giving them up. I beg to inform you 
that there is no intention on the part of the 
gentlemen forming the Thrumpton Fishing Club 
to give up the waters, nor has any such idea ever 
been entertained by them, and as long as the 
club is in existence, there is no intention on the 
part of Lady Byron to disturb their tenancy. I 
shall therefore feel obliged by your contradicting 
the statement made in j-our last Saturday’s 
issue.—Yours trul 3 % H. H. Carter, 
Hon. Sec. to the Thrumpton 
Fishing Club. 
Eldon Chambers, Wheeler-gate, 
Nottingham. 
A CORRECTION. 
Dear Sir, —With respect to the article by 
“ Rux ” in (iazetle of Jan. 7, if your correspondent, 
“ F. J. White,” Avill read it ‘2.50 dols., instead of 
‘250 dols., I think it At ill ex]>lain the mistake.—• 
Yours faithfully, W. K. 
