Vol. 2 No. 43
To ask the Minister for Fisheries:— (1) If he will furnish the name of the person who applied for the inquiry in reference to the defining of the mouth of the Carrowbeg or Westport River in 1918 or 1919;
(2) if he is in a position to say when the spawning beds for salmon were established in this river;
(3) if the defining of the mouth of the river 1½ miles seaward from the natural mouth means the extension of the river through the salt water to this extent, and if not, why?
(1) It would appear that the person who raised the question of having the mouth of this river defined was the Marquis of Sligo; and, upon his doing so, the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction, having satisfied themselves that the making of the definition was desirable, held a public inquiry into the matter.
(2) Spawning beds are not laid down artificially. The salmon select their beds on gravelly stretches. I am not, therefore, in a position to say when these spawning beds were established. Fish are reported to have been observed going up the river to spawn about the year 1917.
(3) The statutory mouth, subject to definition, of any river is indicated in the statute 13 and 14 Victoria, Chapter 88, Section 44. The defined mouth of the Carrowbeg or Westport River, as fixed in January, 1918, is about 400 yards beyond the point where the width of the river is one quarter of a mile (which is the point indicated for rivers in general by the statute). The restricted area in this case extends half a mile only from the defined mouth. I am handing the Deputy a copy of the section of the statute to which I have just referred.
(4) As stated in my reply to the Deputy's question on this subject on the 22nd ultimo, the question of holding an inquiry with the object of having this whole matter reviewed will be considered if it can be shown that there is a reasonable local demand for it.
Is the Minister aware that he has given the case away, and that the Marquis of Sligo laid down the spawning beds himself, at the time the demand for this Inquiry was made or afterwards? That is the case. It is a private matter altogether——
The Deputy is now debating the matter——
Well, is the Minister aware that on account of the great social and powerful position of the Marquis, the net fishermen knew it was perfectly useless for them to enter any opposition?
I would draw the attention of the Deputy to the last part of my answer, namely, "the question of holding an Inquiry, with the object of having this whole matter reviewed, will be considered, if it can be shown that there is a reasonable local demand for it," and also, I may add, if the Deputy thinks there is a sufficiently good case.
If there has been wrong done, and done by the Ministry of Fisheries, why should there be another Inquiry, why should it be necessary to go to all the expense of another Inquiry?
In other words, the Deputy expects me to take his side of the case.
