FACTS AND OBSERVATIONS ON THE SALMON.

In the following observations I intend to offer some remarks on

the various migratory fish of the _genus Salmo_; and then some

facts and opinions which tend to show the importance of some

change in the laws which are now in force regarding them.

We have first the Salmon; which, in the Ribble, varies in weight

from five to thirty pounds. We never see the fish here before May,

and then very rarely; a few come in June, July, and August if

there are high floods in the river, and about the latter end of

September they become tolerably abundant; as the fisheries near

the mouth of the river have then ceased for the season, and the

Salmon run very freely up the river from that time to the middle

or end of December. They begin to spawn at the latter end of

October, but the greater part of those that spawn here do so in

December. I believe nearer the source of the river they are

earlier, but many fish are seen on the spawning beds in January;

and I have even seen a pair so late as March; but this last is of

very rare occurrence.

Some of the male Kipper (Kelts) come down in December and January,

but the greater part of the females remain in the river until

April, and they are occasionally seen herding with shoals of

Smolts in May. In this state they will take a worm very readily,

and are, many of them, caught with the fly in the deeps; but they

are unfit to eat, the flesh being white, loose, and insipid;

although they have lost the red dingy appearance which they had

when about to spawn, and are almost as bright as the fresh fish,

their large heads and lank bodies render it sufficiently easy to

distinguish them from fish which are only ascending the river,

even if the latter were plentiful at this season; but this is

unfortunately not the case.

Secondly, we have the Mort. I am not sure whether this fish is

what is called the Grilse in Scotland, or whether it is the Sea

Trout of that country; it is a handsome fish, weighing from one

and a half to three pounds. We first see Morts in June; from that

time to the end of September they are plentiful in favourable

seasons in the Hodder, a tributary stream of the Ribble, although

they are never very numerous in the Ribble above the mouth of that

stream. It is the opinion of the fishermen here that this is a

distinct species; my own opinion is, that it is a young Salmon,

and yet, if I were called upon to give reasons for thinking so, I

could not offer any very conclusive ones: the best I have is, that

there is no perceptible difference in the fry when going down to

sea. It may be said, How do you know that one of the three or four

varieties of Smolts which you describe further on, is not the fry

of the Mort? To this objection, if made, I say that these

varieties exist in the Wharfe, where, owing either to natural or

artificial causes, there is never either a Mort or a Sprod

(Whitling?) seen.

Thirdly, we have the Sprod, which is, I believe, synonymous with

the Whitling, Whiting, or Birling of Scotland. It is a beautiful

fish of six or eight ounces in weight, and has more the appearance

of the Salmon than the Mort; it seldom ascends the river before

July, and, like the Mort, is far more abundant in the Hodder than

in the Ribble; this fish sometimes rises pretty freely at the fly,

and when it does so, makes a very handsome addition to the

angler's basket, but at other times it is difficult to hook,

because of its shyness. It disappears in a great measure about

September.

Fourthly, we have the Pink, or Par, which is found of two or three

sizes in the Ribble; the largest are all males, and in October the

milt in them is large; they are small fishes, ranging in weight

from about one to three ounces each, and it is well remarked by

the author of that delightful book "Wild Sports of the West," they

have very much the appearance of Hybrids between the Salmon and

the Trout; they rise very freely at the fly and maggot, from July

to October, and afford good sport to the angler who is satisfied

with catching small fish. I trust I shall be able in the following

pages to give some information respecting this fish which will

assist in dispelling the mystery in which its natural history has

been enveloped.

I will now mention a few of the opinions respecting the various

species of the Salmon, and also my own, when they are at variance

with the generally received ones, and give the facts and

reasonings which have induced me to form those opinions, and I

shall be very glad, if I am in error on any of these points, if

some one of my readers, better acquainted with the subject than I

am, will take the trouble to set me right. It seems to be the

opinion of many, indeed of most persons, that the Salmon spawns

from November to February, that the young fry, or Smolts, go down

to the sea in the April or May following; my own opinion is that

they stay in the river much longer. The Grilse is by many believed

to be a distinct species, whilst others stoutly maintain that it

is a young Salmon.

The testimony of the witnesses from the Severn, the Wye, the Lee,

near Cork, and the Ness (see the evidence given before the Select

Committees of the House of Commons in 1824 and 1825), would lead

one to suppose that the fish were in best season from November to

March, whilst the evidence of the witnesses from other parts of

the kingdom goes to prove that this is the very worst period for

catching them.

One maintains that each river has its own variety of fish, which

can be distinguished from the fish of any other river; another

contends that there is no such difference; a third states that

stake nets are exceedingly injurious to the breed of the fish; and

a fourth attests that stake nets only catch the fish when they are

in the best season, that neither Kelt nor fry are taken in them,

and that if they were prohibited it would only be preserving the

fish for the grampuses and seals;--in short, the evidence

regarding both their habits, and the best mode of catching them,

having in view the preservation and increase of the breed, is so

completely contradictory as to leave a doubt in the mind of every

one who reads it, and has no other means of forming an opinion. I

will endeavour to show in some instances which of the testimonies

is correct, and it will be for my readers to judge how far I

succeed, and I hope they will be so obliging as to correct any

error into which I may fall.

First.--It is my opinion that the fry of Salmon are much older

when they leave the river than seems to be generally supposed, and

that the growth of this fish is by no means so rapid as it is

considered to be by those who have written upon the subject. For

several years previous to 1816 the Salmon were unable to ascend

into the upper parts of the river Wharfe, being prevented either

by the high weirs in the lower parts, or by some other cause, and

of course there were no Smolts or Par; but in that year either the

incessant rains of that summer or rumours of the formation of an

association for the protection of fish, or some other unknown

cause, enabled some Salmon to ascend the river, thirty or forty

miles, and to spawn there. In the next spring, 1817, there were no

Smolts, but about September they began to rise at the very small

flies which the anglers use in that river--they were then a little

larger than Minnows. In the spring of 1818 there were blue Smolts,

or what are generally known as Salmon fry, which went down to the

sea in the May of that year; but these were only part of the

brood, the females only, the males remaining all that summer,

being at the period when the females went down very much smaller

than they, and what was called at the Wharfe Grey Smolt and Pinks,

or Par elsewhere.

I have shown that there were two migrations from the spawn of

1816; but this was not all--there still remained a few Smolts

through the summer of 1819, which by that time were from four to

six ounces in weight, and which are known by the anglers there as

Brambling Smolts. The blue marks on their sides are very distinct,

and the fish is a perfect Smolt, except that it is considerably

larger. It is quite different from the Whitling, or Sprod, which

is not known in the Wharfe, at least not in the upper parts of

that river, whilst the Brambling is never seen in the Ribble. [1]

The Brambling is a beautiful fish, and it rises very freely both

at the May fly and the artificial fly through the summer; it is

occasionally caught by anglers with the worm on the Salmon

spawning beds in the autumn, with the milt perfectly developed,

and in a fluid state. Although this fish is not found in the

Ribble, so far as my observations and inquiries have gone, I

believe that it is found in the Tweed, and perhaps also in other

rivers running into the German Ocean; for a letter addressed to

Mr. Kennedy, who was chairman of the select committee appointed to

investigate this subject, by a Mr. George Houy, states that the

Smolts are sometimes found there ten inches long, which he

attributes to their not being able to get down at the proper

period for want of a flood in the river. But I know that in the

Ribble Smolts will go down to the sea without there being a flood

at all, if that does not come within ten days or a fortnight of

the time at which they usually descend to the sea. I also know

that Brambling are found in the Wharfe, in years where there has

been no deficiency in that respect; yet why they should be common

in that river, when they are never met with in the Ribble, which

has ten times as many Salmon and Smolts in it, I am unable to

comprehend.

It is my opinion that the ova of the Salmon are not hatched before

March or April. Two anglers, who were in April wading in the river

Wharfe, came upon a spawning bed, which they had the curiosity to

examine; they found a number of ova, in which they could see the

young fry already alive, and one of them took these eggs home with

him. By regularly and frequently supplying them with fresh water,

he succeeded in hatching them, and kept some of the young fishes

alive for some time; but they died in consequence of neglect, and

were even then very diminutive. The opinion generally received in

Scotland seems to be, if I may judge from the evidence given

before the House of Commons, that the Smolts go down to the sea in

the spring after they are spawned, and that they return in the

summer and autumn of the same year as Grilse. When they return,

and what size they are on their first visit, I have hitherto been

unable to ascertain; but I think I have succeeded in proving that

they do not go to the sea so soon as is generally believed, nor do

any of the witnesses give their reasons for thinking that they do.

I should very much like to learn what evidence they have to offer

in behalf of this opinion.

I remember seeing an article in the "Scotsman," perhaps about

twelve months ago, in which it was stated that Dr. Knox had made

some important discoveries in the natural history of the Salmon

and Herring, both in their food and propagation, and, if I

recollect aright, it stated that he had ascertained that the eggs

remained several months in the gravel, and that then, in a few

days or weeks after, they (_i.e._ the fish hatched from them) were

so much grown as to go down to the sea; but none of the data which

enabled him to arrive at this conclusion were given, and since

then I have heard nothing about the matter. As it is so long since

I read this article, I may have quoted it incorrectly, but I

believe its substance was what I have stated.

The only conclusive evidence I can find about the hatching of

Salmon fry is that of Mr. George Hogarth (second Parl. Report, p.

92), and his account agrees with my own: he states that he took

Salmon spawn from the spawning beds, and by keeping it freely

supplied with fresh water, he succeeded in hatching some of the

eggs; he gives drawings of the appearance of the fry in three or

four different stages, from the egg to the age of eight days (see

Appendix to second Parl. Report), that the young fry, by keeping

them well supplied with fresh water, were very lively and vigorous

for three weeks, but that they after this time appeared to grow

languid and uneasy, and as they would eat nothing they died when

one inch long. Unfortunately he does not state at what time of the

year they were hatched, but if this were in March or April, which

I see no reason to doubt, it is sufficient to prove that they

would not reach the size that Smolts are when they leave the river

for the sea; for supposing them to be hatched the last week in

March, and that they lived a month, this would bring us to the

time when they are about to migrate, at which time they average

more than six inches long; many of them are eight inches, and at

this period they are fond of feeding upon worms, flies, maggots,

and caddis worms, as is known to every schoolboy living on the

banks of a river frequented by Salmon. It is also my opinion that

neither Salmon nor Trout spawn every year, [2] for Salmon ascend

the river as early as January, in the highest condition, with roe

in them no bigger than mustard seed: these could not have spawned

that season, as the Kelts, particularly the females, do not return

to the sea until March or April, [3] and at that time they are in

very bad condition, and do not appear to have a particle of spawn

in them; and in the evidence of Mr. Mackenzie (see Parl. Rep., p.

21), we have an account of a Grilse Kelt which was caught and

marked in March, 1823, and was again caught as a Salmon on its

return to the river in March, 1824. In this case the fish had

evidently required a residence of twelve months in the sea before

it was in a condition to visit the river a second time, and in the

Wharfe it is the constant practice of the angler to catch Trout

through the winter with very minute roe in them, and in high

condition with the worm and Salmon roe, and also with night lines.

In fact, one of the fishermen has frequently remarked to me that

he occasionally caught dishes of Trout with the fly in January,

and in finer condition, than he has found them in April, which he

accounted for by saying that the spawned fish (Kelts) of that

season had not begun to rise freely at the fly at the former

period, but they had at the latter, so that his pannier contained

as many Kelts as fresh fish. Another reason has just occurred to

me: it is, that in January the spawned fish will still be in the

small brooks in which they are so fond of breeding, and of course

the bulk of the fish remaining in the river at that time would be

fish in good season.

As it is some years since I acquired this information, or at least

a part of it, I felt afraid of giving it incorrectly; and I

therefore addressed a letter to a friend living on the banks of

the Wharfe, requesting him to send me all the information in his

possession on this subject, that derived from his own observations,

as well as that collected from others. He has since the above was

written sent me the following reply:--"I have seen Robinson (one

of the best anglers and fly makers between Cornwall and Caithness),

and have had some conversation with him on the subject of Salmon,

&c. He is of opinion that the spawn of the Salmon remains five

months in the gravel before hatching; he examined the spawn in

April, and found the young fry alive in the eggs, and Ingham,

another angler, took some home and kept one of the Smolts two or

three months. I have subsequently seen Ingham, and he has given me

the same account. All the fishermen here are of opinion that the

female Smolts remain one year, and the males two years, before they

go down to the sea. The Bramblings are supposed to be Smolts which

remain a year longer than the usual time; they are few in number,

and are generally taken with the May fly. I have no doubt that the

above opinions are correct, for we have now three distinct sizes of

Smolts in the river exclusive of Bramblings, the largest of which

are nearly four ounces in weight, and are all males, as they

contain milt in October and November. The next are the females of

the present year: I have had one since the receipt of your letter,

which weighed half an ounce and measured five inches in length;

this was a real blue Smolt; the third are the males of the same

age, and are much smaller; these are occasionally taken with the

worm, and will rise at the fly all the next summer."

"We were for several years, but I do not know the dates, entirely

without Salmon, and of course without Smolts; and we invariably

found that the Smolts made their appearance the year after the

Salmon, but were very small till the second year, when we had what

we call blue Smolts, which disappeared in May or June; and what

you called Pinks, which remained till the following year; and

Brambling Smolts, which remained another year. The fishermen here

are also of opinion that neither Salmon nor Trout spawn every

year. Robinson says that one day lately (the letter is dated

December 13th) he caught seven Trouts, six of which were in good

season; and he brought me two the other day, one of which

contained roe, and the other was in excellent condition." My

friend states, in a subsequent communication, that one of the

fishermen had told him that he had caught the male Smolt (Par)

more abundantly on the Salmon spawning beds than elsewhere, and my

friend adds that the opinion there is, that if a female Salmon

gets up to the spawning beds, and if no male accompanies her, yet

her eggs are fecundated by the male Smolts; and they allege, in

support of this opinion, that a female got up one season and

spawned, and though no male was seen near her her eggs were

prolific. I mention this, although I apprehend it is evidence

which the unbeliever will consider inadmissible, for though no

male was seen, still there may have been one, or admitting that

one did spawn, without being accompanied by a male, yet another,

which contrived to bring her mate along with her, may have spawned

in the same place the same season; yet, notwithstanding its

liability to these objections, I have no doubt myself that if a

female were to come alone her eggs would be impregnated by the

Par. It is an excellent maxim, that Nature makes no useless

provisions; yet, if we admit that Par are young Salmon, for what

purpose is the milt if not to impregnate Salmon roe? and if we

deny this to be the fact, we must endeavour to show that there are

female Par, but in all my examinations, I have never been able to

meet with one that contained roe. That the Grilse are Salmon is

proved I think sufficiently by the evidence given before the House

of Commons. Mr. Wm. Stephens states (see Rep., p. 52) that he has

known Grilse kept in a salt-water pond until they became Salmon,

and that fry that had been marked came back that year as Grilse,

and the year after as Salmon; and Mr. George Hogarth states that

he has often seen a Salmon and a Grilse working together on the

spawning beds, as two Salmon, or two Grilse; and Mr. Mackenzie

states (page 21) that he, in March, 1823, marked a Grilse Kelt

with brass wire, and caught it again in March, 1824, a Salmon of

seven pounds weight. The testimony of the witnesses from the Ness,

the Severn, the Lee, and some other rivers, is too positive and

too well supported to admit of any doubt as to the excellent

condition of many of the fish ascending those rivers in November,

December, and January--a period when they are out of season, and

full of spawn generally, and even when many fish are caught in

those rivers in the same unseasonable condition. The fact that

there are many fish in fine season in those months may be, I

think, accounted for, if we admit that Salmon spawn every other

year, which I have I think shown to be very probable; but what it

is that induces those fish to ascend rivers so many months before

the spawning season, I cannot explain. Probably there may be some

quality in the waters of these rivers, all the year, which is

congenial to the habits of the fish, while the same quality may

only be found during part of the year in others; it is certain

that the quality of the waters in rivers generally varies very

much with the season: thus the water of the Ribble, after a flood

in summer, is always of a dark brown colour, being so coloured by

the peat moss over which it passes, while in winter no such tinge

can be observed; and there may be other differences with which we

are unacquainted; however, whether this is the true reason or not,

it certainly cannot be that the fish which spawn in October are

impelled by their desire to propagate their species to ascend the

river the January before; and if this long residence in fresh

water were necessary for the proper development of the ova in one

river, we might suppose it would be necessary in all; yet this is

not the case, as the red fish which ascend the river in November

and December have at that time the spawn in them nearly ready for

exclusion.

On one point, about which there is great difference of opinion,

viz. whether the fish which are bred in the river generally resort

to it again, and whether each river has its own variety of fish, I

am not a competent judge, as I am acquainted with too few rivers

to pretend to decide. I may, however, just remark that the Hodder,

though it is a much smaller river than the Ribble, is always much

better stocked with Salmon, Morts, Sprods, Smolts, and Par than is

the latter river, which I attribute to the fact that more fish

spawn in the river Hodder, which runs for many miles through the

Forest of Bowland (the property of the Duke of Buccleuch) and

other large estates, and the fish are much better protected there

than in the Ribble, where, with one or two exceptions, the

properties are very much divided, and few people think it worth

their while to trouble themselves on the subject. Dr. Fleming, in

his letter to Mr. Kennedy (Appendix to the first Rep., 1825),

seems to doubt that Salmon enter rivers for any other purpose than

of propagation, but lest I should misrepresent his opinions, I

will quote what he has said on the subject:--"In the evidence

taken before the Select Committee during the last season of

Parliament, and appearing in the report, there are several

statements of a somewhat imposing kind, which, as they appear to

me to be erroneous and apt to mislead, I shall here take the

liberty of opposing." He then enumerates several opinions

expressed before the Select Committee, one of which is, that

Salmon enter and leave rivers for other purposes than those

connected with spawning (see the evidence of Messrs. Little,

Halliday, and Johnstone).

First, "That they enter rivers to rid themselves of sea lice

(_Monoculus piscinus_);" secondly, "That they forsake rivers to

save themselves from being exhausted by residence in fresh water,

and from having their gills devoured by a maggot (_Lernaea

salmonea_)." The whole history of the Salmon contradicts this

hypothesis. Another of these errors is, that it is asserted (Rep.,

1824, p. 145), "That Salmon always return to the same river;" this

is not probable, when we consider the circumstances in which they

are placed during their residence in the sea. On the first of

these opinions, I am not a competent judge; but I think that the

fact that Salmon enter rivers nine or ten months before they are

ready to spawn, is of itself sufficient to show that there are

other reasons for their entering rivers than those connected with

propagation. With respect to the second, I believe that after

Salmon have once entered rivers, at least when they have ascended

into the upper parts of them, they never offer to descend again

until they have spawned. On the third opinion I would remark, that

although I do not think that Salmon always come to the same river

in which they were bred, yet I think they will do so if they can;

and I think that the fact which I have mentioned of the Hodder, a

smaller and a tributary stream to the Ribble, containing many more

Salmon, as well as more Morts and Sprods, countenances this

supposition, for why should the larger number of fish ascend the

smaller river except for such a reason?

I am of opinion that Salmon do not grow so fast in the sea as is

generally supposed. It is here generally believed that the Smolts,

which go down in the spring, come up again in the August or

September following, five or six pounds in weight; and George

Little, Esq., in his evidence states that as his opinion, but he

does not give any other reason for it than this: "That the Grilse

that ascend the river in June weigh one and a half or two pounds,

and that those which come in September weigh five or six pounds,"

--but opposed to this supposition is the evidence of Mr. Mackenzie,

before referred to (second Parl. Report, p. 21), who states that

he caught in March a Grilse Kelt which weighed three and a half

pounds, that he marked it with a brass wire, and let it go, and

that in the March following he caught it again a Salmon of seven

pounds weight. Now a fish which weighed three and a half pounds as

a Kelt, would weigh five pounds or six pounds when in high

condition the summer before, and if this were so, which I believe

all persons who are acquainted with Salmon will admit, the fish

would have gained only one pound or two pounds in fifteen or

eighteen months. Besides, if Salmon grew as fast as is stated and

believed by many persons, the breeds of different years would vary

very much in weight, whereas it is known to everybody that we have

them of all sizes, from five pounds to forty pounds; and it is

contrary to analogy to suppose that a fish which is two or three

years in arriving at the weight of as many ounces, should in two

or three months acquire as many pounds. There are, however, two or

three things about which all persons agree in opinion--one of

these is: that the breed of Salmon is decreasing every year, and

that the great cause of this decrease is the want of protection,

and a consequent destruction in the spawning season. The complaint

on this head is universal from north to south; from the Shannon to

the Tweed, the cry is--"Protect the breeding fish, or we shall

very soon have none to protect." And yet, although the destruction

of the spawning fish, and the destruction of the fry in the

Spring, are the chief reasons for this alarming falling off, no

one seems able to devise a remedy; no one seems inclined to make

the necessary sacrifices for so desirable an object, and without

these sacrifices it would be absurd to expect the fish to become

plentiful; and instead of furnishing an abundant supply of cheap

and wholesome food to all classes, which they certainly would do

if the fisheries were properly regulated, they will either become

wholly extinct, or so rare as to be found only at the tables of

the wealthy. James Gillies, in his evidence, states that his

brother had in one night killed in the Tweed four hundred Salmon

at one landing-place in close time; and all the reports are full

of statements showing how unceasing and universal is the

persecution the Salmon undergo, not only when in season, but at

all times, and most of all when every one should do his utmost to

preserve them--I mean when they are spawning. In this neighbourhood

the properties generally are so much divided, and so few good fish

are allowed to ascend the river, that no one has any interest in

protecting them in close time, and the consequence is, as might be

expected, that all sorts of contrivances for taking them are

resorted to: they are speared and netted in the streams by day and

night; they are caught with the fly, they are taken with switch

hooks (large hooks fixed to the ends of staves), or with a triple

hook fixed to the end of a running line and a salmon rod; if the

river becomes low, parties of idle fellows go up each side of it

in search of them, and by stoning the deeps, or dragging a horse's

skull, or large bone of any kind through them, they compel the

fish to _side_, and there they fall an easy prey, in most cases

where the pool is of small extent. In a river so small as the

Ribble, it will be readily believed that not many fish can deposit

their spawn in safety, when practices of this kind are followed

almost openly, and when no one feels a sufficient interest in the

matter to put a stop to them. A single party of poachers killed

four hundred Salmon in one spawning season near the source of the

river; the roe of which, when potted, they sold for L20. Need we

be surprised, then, if the breed decreases? The only wonder is that

they have not been exterminated long ago.

I may perhaps be allowed to say what, in my opinion, would remedy

this alarming destruction, particularly as no one hitherto seems

to have devised an efficient preventive. I believe that in 1826

there was an Act of Parliament passed which either repealed or

modified some of the old laws on the subject, and I have also

understood that the good effects of this new law are already

perceptible in Scotland, to which it is exclusively applied. There

was a bill introduced into Parliament in 1825 which was intended

to apply to the whole kingdom; but some of the clauses were so

very objectionable, that if they had been carried they could not

possibly have been enforced without stopping and ruining the

manufactories which were carried on by water-power, and the bill

was consequently abandoned. The first thing to be done is to give

the proprietors on the upper part of the river such an interest in

the fisheries as will make them anxious about the preservation of

the fish in the spawning season; and to accomplish so desirable an

object no one ought to fish or keep a net stretched across a river

for more than twelve hours each day, or from sunrise to sunset;

and every mill-owner ought to be compelled to facilitate the

passage of the fish over his weir by every means consistent with

the proper supply of water to his wheels. At present the fisheries

at the mouths and lower parts of rivers so completely prevent the

access of the fish to the upper parts, that unless there happen to

be high floods, which prevent the fishermen below from keeping

their nets in, the upper proprietors comparatively seldom see any

until the season is at an end. The evidence before the House of

Commons on this point is exceedingly amusing. One person thinks

the upper proprietors have no right to expect any fish, as they

have never paid any consideration for them when they bought their

estates; another states that he pays L7,000 a year to the Duke of

Gordon, and that if he is compelled to observe a weekly (not a

daily) close time, he will lose that proportion of his rent;

another observes the weekly close time, and opens a passage for

the fish, but places a crocodile, painted in very glaring colours,

in the gap to frighten them back again; another says he observes

the weekly close time in his cruive fishing, but no one is allowed

to inspect the cruives; another sends men to break down the stake

nets in the estuary, which reach from high to low water-mark, and

at the same time stretches a net completely across the river from

March to August, so that a fish cannot pass without his

permission. No wonder that fish are scarce in the upper parts of

the river, when such samples of _disinterestedness_ are manifested

by the proprietors of the fisheries below. No wonder that the

upper proprietors should be careless about the protection of fish

from which they are not allowed to derive any benefit. No wonder

that they should connive at, and even encourage, the shameful

destruction of fish in close time, since that is the only time

they are allowed to have any. Let the fishermen below make it

worth the while of the upper proprietors to protect the fish, and

they will receive that protection; but it is too much to expect

from human nature that these proprietors will take all the odium

and trouble of preserving them when others reap all the benefit.

There ought to be conservators employed, to see that the fisheries

are properly regulated, and these should be paid by an assessment

on all the proprietors in proportion to the value of their

fisheries.

I should also recommend an extension and uniformity of close time

in all the rivers in the kingdom, for although it is an undoubted

fact that some clean fish are caught in the river early in the

season, yet they are comparatively few in number, and their

capture involves that of a far greater number of spawning and Kelt

fish, which are not only of no value for the table, but the

destruction of which is in effect the destruction of millions of

fish which would proceed from them. In the first Parl. Rep., p.

11, Mr. Walter Jamieson says, that in the river Tweed, from

January 10th to February 1st, he caught one hundred and twenty-one

fish, only one of which had spawned; from February 1st to March

1st he took forty-four fish, twenty-five of which had not spawned

--fifteen were Kelts and four were clean fish; from March 1st to

March 10th he took seventeen fish, seven of which had not spawned

(four of them on the 10th)--six were Kelts and one clean fish. Now

the close time varies in almost every river, and some have no

close time at all; thus in the Ribble the close time begins on

September 15th and ends on December 31st, and in the Hodder there

is no legal close time; but there is no practical difference

between them in this respect, every one thinking himself entitled

to kill all the fish he can, at all times of the year, in both of

them. The observance of the weekly close time, that is, opening a

passage for the fish from sunset on Saturday night to sunrise on

Monday morning, is a mere farce, even if it could not be evaded,

as it almost invariably is, for it is well known to every one

conversant with the habits of Salmon, that they only ascend the

rivers when there are freshes (floods) in them, and in summer the

ground is generally so dry, and vegetation absorbs so much

moisture, and the evaporation is so great, that it not only

requires twice as much rain to produce a flood in the river then

as it does in winter, but when the rain does come its effects are

only visible in the river for a short time. I have known a strong

fresh in the Ribble in the morning, and the river low again in the

afternoon of the same day. A fresh coming at the beginning of a

week, would disappear long before the close of it, unless the

rainy weather continued; and thus the strict observance of the

weekly close time would be of little service to the upper

proprietors unless the fresh came at the right end of the week.

The Smolts and the Par ought to be protected as strictly as the

Salmon; and there ought to be a penalty attached to the killing of

them, or having them in possession, and conservators of rivers

ought to have the power of inspecting all mills and manufactories

driven by those rivers, to ascertain that they have no contrivances

for taking the fry on their way to the sea, as it appears that in

some rivers they are taken in large quantities. There ought also to

be a penalty attached to the killing of Kelt fish, which in that

state are not only tasteless and insipid, but actually unwholesome;

yet they are pursued and destroyed with as much avidity as the fresh

fish, and a very small number of the few that spawn in safety ever

return to the sea. A penalty ought also to be inflicted for selling,

buying, using, or having in possession Salmon roe, either in a fresh

or salted state, as its excellence as a bait for Trout and Eels, and

the consequent high price at which it sells, are sufficient

temptations to poachers to kill the Salmon in the spawning season

even if they could not sell or use any other part. Yet destructive

as this practice is, there is an extensive trade in this article--

a fishing-tackle maker in Liverpool having told a friend of mine

that he sold 300 lbs. in a season, which, supposing every egg to

hatch, would produce perhaps five times as many Salmon as are caught

in one year throughout the whole kingdom. [4]

In concluding this imperfect sketch, I may remark that I have

omitted many things concerning the natural history and habits of

the Salmon, fearing to trespass too much on the patience of my

readers; but I have wished, in addition to communicating some

facts in the natural history of this fish, which I believe are not

generally known, to call the attention of the public to the

present state of the Salmon fisheries in England. Many of the

preceding observations are founded on the evidence of persons

connected with the fisheries in Scotland, and are perhaps no

longer applicable to that part of the kingdom, since there has

been an alteration in the laws; whether this is the case or not, I

have no present means of ascertaining. I shall be glad if any one

having a knowledge of the subject will say what benefit, if any,

has been derived from the alteration; however, it is sufficient

for my present purpose to show what is the state of things when

there are no laws on the subject, or, which is the same thing,

when there is no attention paid to them; a state of things which,

instead of promoting an abundant supply of these excellent fish,

and rendering the Salmon fisheries nationally important, tends by

the habitual disregard of the laws by one party, the selfishness

of another, and the neglect of a third, to render these fisheries

of little and decreasing value; whereas if the lower proprietors

would allow a tolerable supply of Salmon to come up the river when

they were worth taking, and the upper ones would preserve them

during close time, there would be plenty for each and for all.

I am aware it will be difficult to legislate upon this subject

without injury to what is of infinitely greater importance--I mean

the manufactories of the country. The absurd and impracticable

clauses which were contained in the bill for the protection of the

fisheries, which was introduced into Parliament in 1825, show

this; yet notwithstanding this difficulty, I think it is possible

to protect the fish without interfering with the interest of the

mill-owners, and to make such laws on the subject as will be

effectual, without calling forth a single objection from any

unprejudiced person. I shall be glad if what I have said on this

subject should induce any gentleman to turn his attention to it.

There must be many whose opportunities of observation will enable

them to determine whatever is doubtful in the natural history of

the Salmon tribe; whose experience will teach them the defects and

absurdities of the present laws on the fisheries; and whose

influence will, if they can be induced to exert it, materially

contribute to their amendment.

CLITHEROE, _January_, 1834.

* * * * *

THE SALMON ENTERS AND ASCENDS RIVERS FOR OTHER PURPOSES BESIDES

PROPAGATION. [5]

In addition to the objections which I have offered to the seeming

doubt of Dr. Fleming, whether Salmon enter rivers for any other

purpose besides propagation, the following have come to mind; and

though they do not apply to the Salmon, they confirm me in the

opinion that there are reasons, of which we know nothing, for fish

ascending rivers, which are not at all connected with propagation.

One is the habit of what is here called streaming. In the winter

the fish not engaged in spawning (I speak of Trout, Grayling,

Chub, Dace, &c.) leave the streams and go into deep water; either

because the water is warmer there, or because they there find more

food; and it is well known to fly-fishers that they do not catch

many fish in the streams if they begin early, say in February. It

is proverbial here that fish begin to stream when the great grey,

or what is called in other districts the devil or dule crook, and

in March brown or brown drake, comes upon the water; and I have

seen Trout by scores leaping at a weir in the beginning of May,

whether in search of food or an instinct implanted in them to keep

all parts equally stocked with them, I do not know; but it has

certainly nothing to do with their spawning. Is it presumptuous to

suppose that God in His providence has implanted this instinct in

Salmon for our good, that we might have a supply of excellent

food, which without this would be in a great measure unattainable?

Whether this is the true cause, and the only one, I am unable to

determine; but this is the effect produced, and in the absence of

other reasons it is, in my opinion, one that ought to be admitted.

Another reason why fish ascend rivers is their impatience of heat.

I speak now more particularly of Grayling; if the weather is very

hot at the end of May or the beginning of June, the Grayling in

the Wharfe (they are almost unknown in this part of the Ribble)

ascend the mill streams by hundreds, and go up the wheel races as

far as they can get, and stay there until the stoppage of the

wheels (many a ducking have I had in pursuit of them), when they

are obliged to beat a retreat, and this often proves a disastrous

one to many of them. The ascent of young Eels by millions, and the

ascent of the Flounder, are neither of them connected with the

propagation of their kind, and though I cannot say for what

purposes they do ascend, I am, I think, justified in doubting

assertions which seem to have nothing to support them but the

positive manner in which they are made.

The Salmon Par is neither a Hybrid nor a distinct species of the

_genus Salmo_, but a state of the common Salmon. The author of

"Wild Sports of the West" says of the Par, as I have noted

previously, "That it has very much the appearance of a Hybrid

between the Salmon and the Trout, and (in a note) that the natural

history of this fish is doubtful. Some conjecture that it is a

Hybrid between the Salmon and Trout, because it is only found in

rivers which are frequented by Salmon. Others think it a cross

breed between the sea Trout and river Trout," and then he speaks

of this "hybridous diminutive," as if he thought one of these

opinions was correct. That the Par is not the result of a cross

between a sea Trout and a river Trout, is proved by the fact that

there are no sea Trouts in the Wharfe, the Par (admitting it to be

a distinct species, which I do not), the Salmon, and common Trout

being the only kinds of Salmonidae which are found in that river,

at least where I am acquainted with it. If the Par be the result

of a cross between the Salmon and the Trout, what becomes of it in

the spring, and where are all the Par, which were so abundant in

October, gone to in April? Did they migrate to the sea, the shoals

would be met with by somebody; and did they stay in the river they

would be caught at one time or other. However, as it is well known

that neither of these cases is ever realized, we must suppose

another, which I have already done in my former communication. In

fact, in angling in the beginning of March, fish are often caught

which would puzzle the most experienced fisherman to determine

whether they are Par or Smolts, especially after they have been

caught some time; and in a large number caught at that time there

are all the intermediate shades of appearance between the perfect

Par and the real blue Smolt.

CLITHEROE, _May 29th_, 1834.

* * * * *

CLITHEROE, _March 18th_, 1846.