To the Editor of the "Manchester Guardian."

SIR,--As I believe that Salmo Salar is quite as desirous of

increasing the breed of Salmon as myself, the controversy between

us may be reduced to very narrow limits. He believes that Trout

eat very few of the Salmon ova, and therefore cannot do much harm.

I will just mention a few facts which make me think otherwise.

When Ramsbottom was in Galway he caught in one night twenty-five

Trout on the spawning ground, which had on the average not less

than five hundred ova in each of their stomachs; from one of their

throats he squeezed a thousand. As the net would not take a fish

of less than two pounds, how many had passed through it? When he

was at Knowlmere, in sweeping the river for spawning fish he

caught nine Par, two Trouts, and a Sprod on the spawning bed, all

of which were gorged with Salmon spawn; when he went into the

brooks there he never found a pair of Trout spawning without also

finding a number of smaller fish behind, some of which he caught,

and in all such cases found them gorged with roe up to the throat;

the male Trout would occasionally drive them off, but as soon as

he returned to the female they were again close in the rear.

In the "Perthshire Courier" of the 22nd December is the following

statement: The men employed in taking the breeding fish secured a

Whitling on Tuesday about three-quarters of a pound, and as they

observed Salmon ova coming out of his mouth he was brought to the

office of Mr. Buist for examination; on being opened, upwards of

three hundred impregnated Salmon ova were taken from his stomach

quite undigested. It may be, therefore, fairly presumed, that this

youngster had taken this quantity for his breakfast; if he dined

and breakfasted in the same style each day during the breeding

season, it is difficult to estimate the expense of his keep. Such

is the amount of loss of impregnated roe in one morning from one

trifling fish; what must it be throughout the season from the

various enemies it has to encounter?

Salmo Salar is facetious about the destruction of the roe by

insects, and says, "because an aquatic insect will devour a

minnow's egg, which is not as large as a pin's head, we have no

right to infer that it will devour that of a Salmon, which is as

large as a pea; it would be just as reasonable to suppose that

because a wasp feasts upon a cherry, or a strawberry, therefore he

will eat a turnip or a mangold wurtzel." As he seems to have made

a slip of the pen in naming the two last _fruits_, allow me to

supply what I suppose he meant to say, which I presume was that

because a wasp eats a cherry or a strawberry, we must not

therefore infer that he will either eat a pear or a plum; if that

is his meaning, I think I can understand it. If he adheres to his

own version, I would merely observe that there is no analogy in

the two cases. But the inference does not rest upon mere

supposition; the freshwater shrimps at Knowlmere were seen

devouring the ova in the spawning-boxes. We have seen above that

Par eat ova as well as Trout. Let us suppose that the millions of

Smolts (as Par) have only one meal each of Salmon roe, and we will

stint them to twenty ova apiece. I fear that very few of the five

millions which Salmo Salar says are deposited in the Hodder will

be left to grow into Salmon. In addition to these, ducks, both

wild and tame, eat them greedily. When Ramsbottom was in Galway he

saw that the tame ducks frequented the spawning ford, and the

superintendent bought one, and found its crop quite full of Salmon

roe. If this had been buried eighteen inches in the gravel (as

Salmo Salar suggests), the duck would have had some difficulty in

extracting it; but so far as my experience goes, it is not usually

one-half that depth, although this varies in different rivers.

Then, if one Salmon is able to plough up gravel which is cemented

together by sand and long continuance in one place, why should not

another be able to do the same when the gravel is loose and easily

removed? But there is another enemy whom Salmo Salar has not

mentioned, who does more harm than all the rest: that is the

poacher, and I fear that many of the Salmon which Salmo Salar saw

spawning in the Hodder and its tributaries have since then made a

journey overland. At all events, I am credibly informed that in

one season a gang of poachers took seventy Salmon in the Hodder.

Is he sure they have taken none this season? Salmo Salar seems to

think that one pair of Salmon will not spawn on the same ground,

which has been previously occupied by another pair; but he has

only to watch the same ridd for a week or two to be convinced he

is mistaken. As to fish refusing to spawn on new gravel, I may

state that when Mr. Fawkes was making his experiments at Farnley

he put some new gravel into his brook, and there were sixteen

pairs of Trout spawning on it the next morning. Salmo Salar says

that if he can have those simple checks which he enumerates to the

present practices, he will restore abundance of Salmon to the

Ribble; they are all very good in their way, but do not go quite

far enough, and they would do very little good without a fourth,

namely, protection from the poacher for the fish on the spawning

beds. Until this can be given more efficiently than it is at

present, all the rest will be unavailing; and until the upper

proprietors can have a greater interest in the preservation of

Salmon than they now have, they cannot be expected to give

themselves much trouble on the subject.

My readers would not be much edified by strong assertion and

counter-assertion of what Trout do, and what they cannot do; nor

is it probable that where we differ we should convince each other;

neither do I see any occasion for personality, when both parties

are actuated by the same motives--a desire to see the Salmon

fisheries restored to a state of great prosperity. I therefore

avoid noticing some of Salmo Salar's remarks, which seem to me a

little tinged with this spirit, and hope we shall be able to act

in concert for the attainment of that desirable result. Salmo

Salar will find that the number of Smolts is not always determined

by the quantity of ova deposited: if he will examine the bed of

the Hodder the next low water, he will find many of the ridds

disturbed by the ice floods of yesterday; and if he doubts this, I

shall be happy to examine them along with him, if he will give me

previous notice of his intention.

Since the above was written I have seen Ramsbottom, who tells me

that the stream in the Tay, where he caught the whole of the fish

from which he obtained 300,000 to 400,000 ova, was on one side of

it one continuous ridd, and that the fish could not avoid

ploughing up the gravel which previous fish had spawned in, and at

Oughterard, where 300 pairs of fish spawned in the same number of

yards, it was the same; and they found thousands of ova buried so

deep that they were rotting in great quantities.

With regard to what Salmo Salar says about the infrequency of a

veritable spawning bed being washed away by floods, I refer him to

what I have said previously; but Ramsbottom tells me the game-

keeper at Harden (Haworth) will be able to give him sufficient

proof that in the Langden Brook this has occurred, as he found the

ova on the dry land by thousands, which had been left there by the

flood.

When Ramsbottom was at Perth he found on one of the fords, a space

of twenty yards long and fourteen yards wide, filled with ridds,

which was entirely left dry. What would become of all the spawn

deposited there?

Salmo Salar seems to think nature is quite sufficient to take care

of her own interests without our interference, and that without

some counter-acting influence to keep the breed of fish in check,

the river would not hold all that would be bred. I quite agree

with him in this, provided nature had fair play; but she has not,

and occasionally needs a little help: else why do we employ game-

keepers to trap cats, foxes, and weasels, to shoot hawks, carrion

crows, and magpies, and to breed pheasants, as well as to prevent

poaching? If these precautions are unnecessary, why go to such

expense? and if they are necessary for hares and birds, may they

not be also for fish?

I hope Salmo Salar will investigate what I said about walling in

of the Smolts in Langden Brook. I fancy he may have seen these

enclosures himself; at all events, I have, and although I cannot

prove they were erected for that purpose, I do not doubt the

accuracy of my information.

I am, Sir,

Yours very truly,

THOMAS GARNETT.

* * * * *

Essays in Natural History and Agriculture · 第 13 / 65 题