FRESHWATER FISH (SCOTLAND) BILL. (Hansard, 20 June 1902)

§ THE EARL OF GALLOWAY
agreed as to the necessity of the Bill, but said that when it was in the other House words were inserted which seriously affected the rights of private individuals. As the Clause at present stood the right to carry on what was known as double rod fishing, or cross line fishing, or set lines, or other fishing, was taken away from persons even in ponds or lochs exclusively belonging to such persons. He contended that this was a piece of Socialistic legislation. In several lochs which he owned it was impossible to catch a single fish without employing these instruments, in connection with the use of which there was no cruelty whatever. They might just as well pass an Act to prevent people shooting with two guns. He held that in a free country everyone should be allowed to do what he liked with his own, so long as he did not interfere with the comfort of others.

§ LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH
I hope the House will not be led away by the noble Earl and accept this Amendment. The noble Earl is correct in saying that this provision was not in the Bill when it was first introduced. It is the result of an Amendment which was moved in the Standing Committee in the other House and carried against the representative of the Government by a considerable majority. The provision placed upon proprietors the same restrictions as to fishing by methods, which, by a previous Act, were declared illegal on the part of others than owners, and I ventured to say on the Second Reading of the Bill, that to this no great exception need be taken. The Government, however, thought it necessary to preserve to proprietors the limited power of netting, which I confess seems to me the only power which even they would really desire to maintain. The effect of the Amendment, if the House were to agree to it, would be to restore the right of double rod fishing, or cross line fishing, or set lines or other fishing in enclosed waters. I think myself that it is extremely desirable that these methods of fishing should die out altogether. They are not, in my opinion at any rate, of the nature of sport, and I think it will cause a great deal of jealousy and friction if these powers are preserved when a Bill of this kind is being passed. The object is to preserve trout for legitimate fly fishing, and if it is necessary to take them by other means, surely it is better to adopt the net than to perpetuate the other forms of fishing referred to. The Clause as it now stands is in the nature of a compromise and I think it would be wise of the House to allow it to pass in the form in which it is now presented.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN
said that so far as he could see the Bill referred solely to trout. That being so, why call it a Freshwater Fish Bill? If 1251 the measure referred to other fish than trout, he thought there was a good deal of force in what had been said by the noble Earl who moved the Amendment.

§ LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH
If the noble Earl will propose in the Standing Committee a title which he thinks will be more appropriate, I shall be most happy to consider it.

§ THE EARL OF GALLOWAY
said that in most lochs in Scotland there were innumerable quantities of trout and pike, and the only way in which the pike could be kept down was by setting lines. If this was made illegal the pike would get the upper hand, with the result that the trout would be considerably diminished.

§ LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH
I do not think there is any provision in the Bill against setting lines for pike.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN
signified his intention of moving, in the Standing Committee, that the title of the measure should be altered to Trout (Scotland) Bill.

§ LORD NEWTON
thought Clause 3, which provided that no person should use dynamite or other explosive to catch or destroy fish, was open to some objection. A person owning a pond which was infested with perch or pike, might be anxious to destroy them, but under the Bill he would be subject to penalties if he used explosives for that purpose.

§ LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH
I think anyone who attempts to destroy one kind of fish by dynamite and wishes the dynamite to differentiate between the fish he desires to destroy and the fish he does not desire to destroy, will find himself very much mistaken. It is extremely likely that it would destroy all the fish in the pool. I am confident that the destruction of fish by dynamite is a proceeding which would be condemned by this House.

§ LORD NEWTON
said there might be no trout in the pond at all, and the owner might wish to destroy the coarse fish in order to introduce trout.

§ LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH
The risk of dynamite being used improperly and illegally, as it sometimes is, is so great that it ought to be prevented altogether. If coarse fish have to be taken out of a pond, surely that can be effectively done by means of netting.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN
asked for an explanation of this Clause, which appeared to apply to salmon fishing.

§ LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH
The river Esk and some of its tributaries are partly in England and partly in Scotland, and the jurisdiction is therefore divided between the English and Scottish authorities. This Clause was put in to save the rights and priviliges of the Board of Trade, who regulate English fisheries, as distinct from the Scottish authorities who regulate Scottish fisheries. It is an agreed Clause, to which no objection has been taken.