As the amusement of fly-fishing is one which holds a first place
in the opinion of every one who understands it, and as the Trout
and the Salmon are the only fish which afford genuine sport to the
angler, and as I believe that the latter in some of the southern
counties is nearly extinct, whilst the former is far from being
abundant, I wish to call the attention of such of your readers as
are possessed by the true _piscatorial furor_, to the facility
with which these fish can be bred artificially. And as many
experiments have been made under my direction, and having
witnessed the results, I unhesitatingly say that there is little
risk of failure, if due care be taken.
The experiments of Shaw and Agassiz, my own also included, have
proved that fish can be bred artificially. The experiments of
Boccius I have not yet tried, although he proposes to arrive at
the same result in another manner, and acting in the manner
recommended by them, Trout and Salmon have been bred by thousands
during the last ten years.
As the season for making the experiment will shortly be here, I
hope that those who intend to try the plan will lose no time in
looking after their supply of breeding fish.
To begin with Trout:--Catch as many as you can conveniently obtain
upon the spawning beds, [6] and examine them carefully one by one,
to see that the spawn and milt are in a fit state for exclusion;
and also to enable you to separate the males from the females. If
they are in a fit state to be operated upon (which may be known by
the facility with which the milt and the roe run from them on a
slight pressure), squeeze the milt of the males into a little
water, and when you have obtained all the milt you can get, add so
much water that the mixture remains slightly opalescent--say about
equal in colour to a tablespoonful of milk mixed in a quart of
water; pour this into a deep dish or bowl, large enough to hold
the largest of your female Trouts; take one of these and put it
into the water so prepared, and gently squeeze the roe from it
whilst the vent is immersed in the water. [7] Do this as quickly as
possible, and return the fish into fresh water, and then pour off
the water containing the impregnated roe, through a strainer,
carefully preserving it for the remaining fish, and immediately
return the roe into fresh spring or brook water. Repeat the
operation for every female Trout, and you will then have a
quantity of impregnated roe, which if properly managed will hatch
with great certainty. Have ready as many boxes as you are able to
stock with spawn (three feet long, two feet broad, and six inches
deep). Fill them to the depth of two inches of river sand, which
ought to be previously so well washed that there is not a particle
of mud left in it, and upon that put two inches of river gravel,
also exceedingly well washed, the pebbles varying in size from a
hazel nut to a pigeon or pullet's egg. These boxes must be so
placed that the water from a spring will flow into the first, and
from the surface of that into the second, and below the whole nest
of boxes there ought to be a small reservoir made--say three yards
by two and eighteen inches deep, and well gravelled at the bottom.
All these matters having been previously arranged, and the water
flowing nicely over the gravel, sprinkle the impregnated roe
equally over the surface of the gravel, say a quarter of a pint to
each box, and it will roll down into the interstices of the gravel
and find a bed in which it will remain snugly until the spring,
when, about March, if all has been properly managed, you will
find, on a careful examination, that the young Trout are coming to
life by hundreds. I am very particular in recommending spring
rather than brook water, for several reasons. In the first place,
brooks are liable to be flooded, and are sometimes so overcharged
with sand and mud that the gravel in the spawning-boxes is
completely choked with it and the spawn is lost, as I know to my
great and frequent disappointments. At other times all is washed
away together. In the second place, the gravel of brooks swarms
with water-lice (shrimps) and the larvae of aquatic insects, as
well as bull-heads and loaches, all of which prey upon the spawn
of the Trout and Salmon. In the third place, if you put your
spawning-boxes in a brook, you will find it difficult to prevent
the escape of the fry when hatched, and you are left in doubt as
to the success of your experiment. With spring water all these
inconveniences are avoided. But if your watercourse should contain
water-lice or aquatic larvae, it is a very easy matter to destroy
them before putting in your boxes, with a little salt or
quicklime. It is also desirable to cover your spawning-boxes with
a wire grating, to exclude the light, and to protect them in
severe weather from the chance of being frozen.
When they begin to hatch, open a communication between the boxes
and the little reservoir below, and if this communicates with a
watercourse in which aquatic plants are growing, so much the
better. The fry, as soon as they are strong enough, will make
their way into this ditch, and will find abundance of food among
the water plants; thence they ought to be able to make their way
into the brook, river, or lake which it is intended to store with
them. All ducks, wild and tame, should be driven from this ditch,
or few of the Trout will be allowed to find their way to their
final place of destination.
These rules, with some modification, are applicable to the
breeding of Salmon as well as Trout; the only difference being in
the mode of placing the female fish, when obtaining the roe, and
the size of the gravel in which the spawn is deposited in the
boxes. The Salmon is too large a fish to put into the vessels in
which the diluted milt is placed, but I think that she should be
held by an assistant, in such a manner that the tail and lower
part of the body up to the vent are immersed in the water
containing the milt. And it is also very necessary to hold her
firmly, otherwise a large fish, in the struggles which it makes to
get free, is apt to upset the vessel containing the milt, and then
the experiment is at an end, at least for the time. Being held
firmly by the assistant, as above stated, the belly of the fish
must be gently pressed by the hands to promote the exclusion of
the spawn, which on exclusion must be gently stirred in the
diluted milt, to bring every grain into contact with it; but the
roe ought not to remain in contact with the milt a minute, if it
can sooner be got out, as I have found that if the diluted milt be
too strong, or if the ova remain too long in contact with it, they
become opaque, and never hatch at all, apparently because they are
over-impregnated. In the ordinary way in which Salmon and Trout
are bred, the milt must be largely diluted with water, and the
contact between the milt and ova can only be momentary, for the
streams in which these fish spawn (particularly the Salmon) are so
rapid, that the milt on exclusion must be carried away immediately.
There is another method, which is preferred by Ramsbottom, to the
one I have been describing, and it is certainly less troublesome.
This is to take the ova from the female fish in the first place
(taking care to exclude the air from it, by immersing the fish
into water up to the vent), and when all the roe has been
collected into a large bowl or basin, then mix the milt with it,
the same diluted in the proportion which has been before
described, namely, until the water which covers the roe becomes
lightly opalescent.
I am quite aware that there is another theory which assumes that
impregnation takes place twelve months before the exclusion of the
ova. [8] But a very careful and long continued examination of the
spawning of minnows and lampreys (I have never been able closely
to examine the spawning of Salmon), convinces me that it is not a
correct one. Besides, did any one ever succeed in hatching the ova
of a fish which had not been allowed to come in contact with milt
after exclusion? If they have, when, where, and how has this been
accomplished, and where is it recorded? I know that I could never
succeed, although I have often tried the experiment. On the other
hand, it is the easiest thing imaginable, with due care and a
suitable situation, to hatch those which have been properly
impregnated after exclusion. But if, to avoid argument, I admit
that this theory is correct, it will not at all interfere with
artificial breeding of Trout and Salmon; on the contrary, it will
materially facilitate it. It will only be necessary to catch
female fish with the ova ready for exclusion, and place these ova
in clean gravel in a box, as before described, but there will be
no occasion for males. But supposing Trout and Salmon can be bred
in this manner, which I by no means believe, there would be no
means of breeding hybrids, which I consider a far more important
achievement, and to which I will now refer.
Ever since my attention was turned to the artificial breeding of
fish, it has always appeared to me exceedingly desirable and
important to breed hybrids between the Trout and the Salmon. The
fry of the Salmon, which, by-the-bye, is perhaps the most
delicately flavoured fish that exists in this country, although it
lives and thrives in fresh water for two or three years, if kept
in a locality where it cannot escape to the sea, yet, if kept
longer than that time, pines away and dies. If, therefore, we
could obtain a hybrid fish, bred between the river Trout and the
Salmon, we should probably produce a fish which, being a mule,
would be always in good condition; being crossed with a river
fish, it would probably never require a visit to salt water to
keep it in good health. Being crossed with a Salmon, it ought to
get to a good size in a comparatively short period; and, if it
would rise at the artificial fly, or the minnow, ought to afford
first-rate sport to the angler.
There does not appear to be a greater specific difference between
the Trout and the Salmon than there is between the horse and the
ass, between the mallard and the musk duck, or between a cabbage
and a turnip. But hitherto, in all my experiments, I have never
succeeded in producing a hybrid between the Trout and the
Salmon. [9] Yet I do not despair of doing so, for there was always
a something to complain of, and to doubt about, in every one I
tried, and I still think I shall succeed by perseverance. Even if
I shall succeed, the result may not prove quite so favourable as I
anticipate, but may turn out as unfortunately as the marriage of
the gentleman in the story, which relates that, being good-
tempered but ugly himself, he married a handsome ill-tempered
wife, hoping that his children would have his good-temper and
their mother's good looks; but when they came, they were as ugly
as the father and as ill-tempered as the mother. So it may prove
with these hybrids--they may not always thrive in fresh water;
they may not grow to a good size; they may not rise at the
artificial fly; they may be worthless for the table. Nevertheless,
it is desirable if possible that this should be ascertained. The
progeny of a male Salmon and a female Trout may be much better or
much worse fitted for a continual residence in fresh water than
the descendants of a male Trout and a female Salmon; but this can
only be determined by experiment. Dr. Lindley says, in his
introduction to the "Guide to the Orchard," that in the cross
fertilization of fruits, the seedlings always partake more of the
character of the male than of the female parent. But I believe
that in breeding mules it is found more desirable that the father
should be an ass than a horse. In my poultry yard I breed hybrids
between the musk duck and the common duck, and I find that I have
a much better progeny from the musk drake and the common duck than
from the common drake and the musk duck. In the latter cross,
although the males are fine birds, the females are not larger than
a widgeon, and fly about almost like wild ducks. This may not
always be the case, but it has proved so with me.
But to return to the fish. If any gentleman who is interested in
such matters will do me the honour to read this paper, and wishes
for further information on the subject, I shall be happy to give
it, so far as I am able. Very sure I am that the sportsman who
once fairly starts as a fly-fisher, and is so fortunate as to hook
a Salmon or a large Trout, will thenceforward despise or lightly
esteem corks and floats, ground-bait and trimmers, punts and Perch
fishing, and will fairly wish them all exchanged for a nice stream
well stocked with Trout--as a gentleman lately said to me, fly-
fishing is a perfect infatuation! He was quite right. The extreme
avidity with which it is followed by the thoroughly initiated, can
only be explained on that supposition; to the casual observer,
there does not appear to be any strong excitement in it. But that
is a great mistake. Let me get to the bank of a river well stocked
with Trout in a good humour, early in the morning, and I feel
neither hunger, thirst, nor fatigue if I fish until dark without
tasting of anything. And the excitement of hooking a ten or twelve
pound Salmon is not much inferior to that produced by a long run
after the hounds.
I cannot conclude without calling the attention of all interested,
and who are able to render assistance in remedying the evil, to
the great falling off in the quantity of fish there is in all the
Salmon rivers in England. With those in Scotland and Ireland I am
not acquainted, but believe that matters are not in a much better
state there. I believe that the unsatisfactory state of the laws
has a great deal to do with this decline in the value of the
fisheries, and I also believe that it is quite possible so to
alter the law as to very greatly improve them, and that without
improperly interfering with what is of far more importance--I mean
the manufactories of the country. As the law stands at present the
proprietors of the upper parts of rivers have not the slightest
interest in the preservation of the fish in the breeding season,
for, as they are seldom allowed to see a fish when it is fit for
the table, why should they look after the poachers in close time?
Why should they be put to much expense and trouble, as well as the
risk of the lives of their game-keepers, merely to breed fish for
the proprietors of stake nets and estuary fisheries, who don't
spend a farthing in the preservation of the fish when breeding,
and yet reap all the benefit? I had occasion, some years ago, to
examine the evidence on this subject given before the House of
Commons in 1825, and was exceedingly amused at the schemes
resorted to to evade the law, moderate and inefficient as was the
law at that time. (Since then the law has been altered both in
Scotland and Ireland, but I do not know what are the provisions,
nor what has been the effect of the new law.) It required that
there should be a free passage for the fish (Salmon) through all
the traps, nets, weirs, and devices that were used to catch or
detain them, from sunset on Saturday night to sunrise on Monday
morning. One man said he paid L7,000 a year for his fishery, and
should lose one-seventh of his catch. Another said he allowed a
free passage on Sundays, but would not permit anybody to go and
examine for themselves. A third proved that he allowed the fish a
free passage on Sundays, but his neighbours proved that he placed
in the gap a crocodile, painted red. And a fourth was convicted of
breaking down the stake nets in the estuary of a river--at the
same time he had a net stretched entirely across the river above,
both day and night. And so with many others, every one striving
with all his might to kill the goose that laid the golden eggs.
This is not the way to improve the Salmon fisheries. To do this
effectually the upper proprietors must have a strong interest in
the preservation of the breeding of fish, and in order to give
them this interest they ought to have an ample supply of fish when
they are in the best condition; but to give them this supply the
law ought to be altered. At present I believe the law does not
require a free passage for the fish (at least in English rivers)
except from Saturday night to Monday morning; in many of them I
believe this is not insisted upon; whereas the law ought to
prohibit fishing for or obstructing the passage of the fish every
night from sunset to sunrise, and this regulation ought to be
rigorously enforced. This would give the upper proprietors a
chance of having good fish, and a corresponding inducement to take
care of them. Nobody would be so much benefited as the owners of
fisheries at the mouths of rivers; they would be the first takers,
and would still get the lion's share of all the fish that ascended
the river. If this regulation were enforced, the expenses of
conservators might be defrayed by levying a small tax, in the
shape of a licence for angling, which all true sportsmen would be
glad to pay if it gave a reasonable prospect of a well-stocked
river. Now matters are getting worse every day, and notwithstanding
the enormous fecundity of the Salmon (a large one producing 25,000
ova in a season), they are now extinct in some rivers where they
used to be found in my recollection, and in others where they were
once abundant they are now very scarce. No one need to wonder at
this, when he is told that gangs of poachers are on the look-out
for them all through the spawning season. In one winter, some
years ago, I am credibly informed that two hundred Salmon were
taken in one stream within five hundred yards of the spot where
I am now writing. It is nobody's business and nobody's interest to
prevent this, and therefore it goes on openly night and day.
Are there no influential gentlemen in the House of Commons who
will take up this matter and endeavour to get an equitable and
comprehensive law passed for the preservation and increase of the
breed of Salmon? It is a matter of even national importance, and
if duly provided for and properly attended to, I see no
improbability in the supposition that Salmon would again be as
abundant as they were when the apprentices on the banks of the
Ribble stipulated that they should not be compelled to eat Salmon
oftener than three days in the week. The apathy of country
gentlemen in this matter is to me unaccountable. I have some
reason to believe, however, that Government have at all times been
so far from lending their influence to the promotion of any
attempts to amend these laws, that they have obstructed rather
than assisted them, most probably from an idea that the
preservation of the fish would interfere with manufactories. If I
thought that this would be the case, I should not say a word on
the subject; but I am very far from holding such an opinion. So
far from this being the case, I assert without hesitation that
weirs need form no obstruction to the free passage of fish, and
that without impairing the efficiency of the water power. With the
poisonous and filthy mixtures sent by some manufactories down the
rivers, the case is far different, and where this is done the case
is hopeless. Salmon and Trout will rapidly disappear from such
rivers, never to be seen there again, so long as these noxious
contaminations are permitted to flow into them.
* * * * *