Februaet 26, 1893] 
THE FISHING GAZETTE 
135 
KIYER-KEEPERS’ DINNER. 
Sir,—K indly allow me to acknowledge the 
receipt of the following additional subscriptions:— 
I Sir J. Whittaker Ellis, Bart., Mr. J. Bigwood, 
M.P., Mr. G. H. Harrison, J.P., Capt. H. B. 
Scrivener, Mr. Andrew Pears, C.A., Messrs. 
H. L. W. Godwin, T. Plews, C. Earlow & Co., 
W. E. Edwards, R. S. Fennings, George Newson, 
W. A. Hening, S. Allcock & Co., A. P. Keeling, 
A. J. Emms, J. T. Davenport, J. R. Berry, T. 
Crumplen, W. G. Fletcher, C. H. Woodall, and 
J. C. Condery & Co. Also from the following 
angling societies:—Central Association, The 
Piscatorial Society, Westbourne Park, New 
Albion Piscatorials, Alma, Athenaium, Anchor 
and Hope, Silver Trout, and the United Brothers. 
There has not been that general response I 
should so much have desired, and I am afraid 
the extra gifts for the wives and families in the 
shape of tea, &c., will otherwise have to be 
abandoned. It is only once a year I appeal to 
the general body of anglers, who in no other way 
support the society, and I yet hope they will not 
forget the river-keepers.—Yours truly, 
W. H. Brougham. 
11, Pownall-gardens, Hounslow. 
MORTALITY AMONG DACE IN A POND. 
Sir, —I should be much obliged if you or any 
of your readers would tell me the probable cause 
of some dace placed in a pond dying. 
The dace were put into the pond on Dec. 1 last, 
and appeared lively and in good condition. There 
has been a small but continuous flow of fresh 
water through the pond ever since the fish were 
placed in—in fact, the flow only ceases in very 
dry weather; the water is perfectly clear and 
good. There is a good deal of green weed. Only 
the large well-grown fish have hitherto died. I 
notice a fish gets white patches on the back, 
separates itself from the rest, and swims about 
alone for a few days, and is then found dead. 
About a dozen out of fifty have so died since 
Dec. 1. Do the white patches indicate disease ? 
Is there anything I could give them likely to be 
beneficial ? There are no other fish in pond— 
plenty of frogs. Dace. 
[We fear there is no doubt the fish are attacked 
by fungus similar to the saprolegnia ferax, which 
is so fatal to salmon. Fungus is a very difficult 
disease to eradicate, but we believe some pisci¬ 
culturists have found benefit from putting 
freshly-dug garden mould into ponds where the 
fish have been attacked by it, also that salt 
rubbed on the part attacked by the fungus kills 
it; it should be done quickly, while the fish are 
held in a wet cloth. When the fungus attacks 
the gills it is fatal. We have never tried it, but 
should think a lump of rock salt would be a good 
thing in a pond infested with fungus germs, of 
course not too much.—Eu.] 
MR. RICHARDSON’S STEEL TRACES. 
Dear Sir,—-W ith reference to the above, I 
shall be glad if any of your readers will say how 
they have found wire traces answer when 
casting from a quick or other reel ? I have 
used them behind a boat on the large Irish lakes, 
and have found them fairly good, but neither 
Foster’s “ Invisible annealed steel fibre ” or 
Norwood’s “ steel wire traces ” pi’oved satisfac¬ 
tory when casting from the reel. I found the 
stiffness an objection, and a hindrance to casting 
a long line.—Yours truly, A. D. C. 
GRAYLING IN THE LOWER ITCHEN. 
Dear Sir, —In last Saturday’s Fishing Gazette 
there was a note on “ Grayling in the Itchen,” 
signed “ Civis,” in the Field. My experience 
does not quite agree with “ Civis’s.” The gray¬ 
ling have worked right down until the tidal 
water is reached at South Stoneham. I have 
seen one of these fish taken by the net out of the 
salmon pool there, and they are frequently 
caught just above Woodmill, especially by roach 
anglers using gentles. “ Civis ” seems to mark 
their downward limit as somewhere about the 
Nine Arches, as he says—“ the grayling are to be 
found all the way from the hatch above Twyford 
Church down to about half-a-mile or so below the 
road, crossing the meadows at Bishopstoko.” 
And again, he says, “ They have not gone down 
to South Stoneham.” 
I think it is neai’ly ten years ago when I saw 
the grayling taken from the salmon pool. 
I have an idea that some were put in where 
they first appear in the river, and that they have 
not worked up to that point. Careful enquiries 
should be made on this interesting subject. 
Apologising for sending this slight correction, 
1 am, yours faithfully, Cuayton R. Leslie. 
The Ellon Castle water, Aberdeenshire, adver¬ 
tised in our columns, is purely a sea-trout fishery, 
but, as such, there are few spots to beat it under 
anything like fair angling conditions. A mode¬ 
rate rent is being asked, with use of boat and 
attendance. A spring salmon or two may occa¬ 
sionally be got, but this inducement is not held 
out, and is specially guarded against. Inquirers 
may confidently dejDend on getting the best and 
most reliable information from Mr. McDonald. 
MODERN METHODS OF FISHERY PRESERVATION. 
THE THAMES ACT OF 1861. 
Sec. 67. 
Which Shom^s the Exte\t oe 
Private Rights m'hich mere to he 
Reserved. 
“ This Act or any power conferred 
by this Act, or any bye-law made or 
other thing done under such power, 
except any bye-law made for any of 
the purposes following, that is to say, 
for the preservation of fish in the 
River Thames, for the prohibition 
of nets and apparatus to be used 
for taking fish, and for determining 
the times during which the taking 
of any particular or specified kinds 
of fish shall not be practised, and 
except the provisions of this Act 
relative to the powers and duties of 
water bailiffs and other officers of the 
conservators, shall not extend to take 
away, alter, or abridge any right, 
claim, privilege, franchise, exemp¬ 
tion, or immunity to which any 
owner or occupier of any private 
fishery in the River Thames is en¬ 
titled, or to empower the conser¬ 
vators to interfere with the exercise 
of the rights of such owner or 
occupier, but the same shall remain 
and continue as if this Act had never 
been made.” 
It will be observed that the Act 
reserves no netting rights, but ex¬ 
pressly indicates that the bye-laws 
relative to the prohibition of nets 
and apparatus should extend to 
private owners as much as to the 
public. The clause does not mean that 
private owners were to have special 
privileges, but that nothing in the 
Act or in the bye-laws should deprive 
them of their fisheries. The bye-laws 
were of course to be made for the 
benefit of all. The existing bye-law 
does not seem to be warranted by 
the Act, and still less so the bye-law 
which is proposed,* by which the 
already large privileges would be 
considerably extended. 
THE OLD AND STILL EXIST¬ 
ING BYE-LAW. 
“ Nothing in these bye-laws, except 
the provisions relative to the fence 
season, shall take away or abridge 
the right, if any, of the owner or 
occupier of a private fishery, or any 
person having authority in writing 
from any such owner or occupier to 
do any of the folloiving things within 
the limits of such private fishery 
only : that is to fish for, or to take or 
attempt to take fish and eels by 
means of nets, commonly called cast- 
nets and crayfish-nets, or by grig or 
ground wheels for eels, or by night- 
lines, or by means of eels bucks or 
stages, so far only as the same or 
any of them can be legally used irres¬ 
pective of these bye-laws. Provided 
that on a special licence being obtained 
from the conservators in writing, 
under their common seal and not other¬ 
wise, such owners or occupiers or 
persons having authority as afore¬ 
said, may in such private fishery only 
take fish by means of a net com¬ 
monly called a hoop-net, having a 
mesh of not less than two inches from, 
knot to knot when wet, or eight inches 
all round, and not being more than 
six yards long, or by means of a net 
commonly called a drag-net, and 
having a mesh of not less than two 
inches from knot to knot when wet, 
or eight inches all round.” 
It will be noticed that the privi¬ 
leges given to persons claiming pri¬ 
vate fisheries are limited to certain 
specified things, and that a licence 
must be obtained for hoop and 
drag-nets. (Note the words we have 
italicised.) 
PROPOSED NEW BYE-LAW. 
(First Edition.) 
“ Nothing in these bye-laws, except 
the provisions relative to the close 
seasons, and the sizes of fish, shall 
take away or abridge the right of the 
owner or occupier of a private 
fishery, or any person having 
authority in writing from such 
owner or occupier, to do any of the 
following things within the limits of 
such private fishery, so far as the 
same or any of them can be legally 
done irrespective of these bye-laws, 
that is, to fish for or attempt to take 
fish or eels by means of nets com¬ 
monly called cast-nets and crayfish 
nets, or by grig or ground wheels for 
eels, or by night-lines, or by means of 
eel-bucks or stages, or by means of a 
net commonly called a hoop-net, 
having a mesh of not less than one- 
and-a-inch from knot to knot w'hen 
wet, or six inches all round, and not 
being more than six yards long, or by 
means of a net commonly called a 
drag-net and having a mesh of not 
less than one-and-a-half inches from 
knot to knot tvhen wet, or six inches 
all round.” 
It should be noted that in this pro¬ 
posed bye-law, the licence for nets is 
altogether done away with, and the 
nets would be allowed of smaller 
mesh than is at present legal. There 
is no limit to the length of the drag¬ 
net, and by another bye-law read 
with this, fishery claimants might 
use night-lines in the fence months. 
The doing away with the licence 
would lead hundreds of people to net, 
and netting inducements would be 
greatly increased by the alteration of 
the mesh. The proposal to bind the 
fishery claimants by the rule as to 
the sizes of fish is new and good. In 
consequence of the outcry these pro¬ 
posals naturally raised, this bye-law 
has been withdrawn in favour of the 
next one. 
PROPOSED NEW BYE-LAW. 
(Second and Latest Edition.) 
“ Nothing in these bye-laws, except 
the provisions relative to the fence 
season and to the sizes of fish, shall 
take away or abridge the right of the 
owner or occupier of a private 
fishery, or any person having autho¬ 
rity in Meriting from such owner or 
occupier, to do within the limits of 
such private fishery, any things 
which can be legally done irrespective 
of these bye - laws, and with the 
special licence of the conservators in 
writing, under their common seal, 
but not otherwise, to take fish in such 
private fishery by means of a net 
commonly called a hoop-net, having 
a mesh of not less than two inches 
from knot to knot when wet, or eight 
inches all round, and not being more 
than six yards long, or by means of 
a net commonly called a drag-net, 
and having a mesh of not less than 
two inches from knot to knot wdien 
wet, or eight inches all round.” 
To please their critics among the 
anglers, the conservators here re¬ 
introduce the words relating to the 
licence, and alter the mesh back to 
the old size. So far so good. Un¬ 
fortunately, instead of following the 
existing bye-law, and the new bye¬ 
law as at first proposed, in setting 
out the exact privileges of the owner 
of a private fishery, they now say 
that, subject to the fence months and 
sizes of fish rules, the person claiming 
a private fishery may do anything 
which he could have done if there 
had been no bye-laws. This is to 
say, he can use nets (hoop and drag¬ 
nets excepted) of any size, shape, 
form, or mesh; is not bound by any 
of the restrictions which are judi¬ 
ciously placed on the angling public, 
and in fact has it in his power to 
absolutely ruin the Thames fisheries. 
No one but themselves can say what 
the conservators intended, but w'e have 
correctly stated what will be the effect 
of the bye-law if by any misfortune it 
should pass the Privy Council. 
