Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
the enclosure had to be hauled in and maintained. The catch then had to be cleaned
and prepared for storage or sale, which mostly meant salting it in large barrels. In
order not to compromise the quality of a particular catching place, the weirs were
carefully deconstructed each year when the catching season ended. If rocks or pole
stumps were left in the river, the water would not flow there the same way in the
following year, which might deter salmon from choosing this particular route on
their journey up the river.
Only particular places on the river were appropriate for the construction of a
weir. These places were of course highly disputed and different arrangements
were agreed to over the course of history. The more the interest and influence of
the Swedish crown, and later the Russian Tsar and the Finnish State, grew in the
region's salmon fishery, and the more the established fisher people saw their privi-
leges jeopardised by newcomers, the more the fishing groups and the distribution
of weirs and catching places was institutionalised. Whereas the weirs had been
operated by loosely organised groups of inhabitants and seasonal fishermen during
the Middle Ages, their organisation was somewhat formalised by the levying of
taxes by the church from the 14th century onwards. In the early 17th century,
membership in such groups was limited to local land-owners. The maximum catch
allowed to a particular fishing family was set proportional to the tax they paid for
their lands. In the second half of the 17th century, a system was introduced that ro-
tated the operation of particular weirs on certain catching places among the now
closed fishing groups. If a group would have fished at catching place
A
last year,
they would move downstream to catching place
B
this year and construct their
weir at place
C
next year.
Another important rule concerned the limits of the weirs across the river. One
third of the diameter of the stream, where the river was at its deepest, had to be
left open. Weirs were not allowed in this channel so that some salmon were al-
ways able to escape the nets, reproduce and ensure the durability of the fishery.
When the influence of royal fishery regulations increased in the 17th century, this
portion came to be known as the King's Channel. But even before, it could happen
that upstream fisher people would destroy a weir that they deemed as a violation
of this rule. Salmon fishing was - in spite of the abundance of fish - never a very
peaceful or harmonious activity: there were continuous quarrels about the position
and size of weirs, the ownership of fishing rights and the violation thereof, as well
as about the taxation by Crown and Church. Fishing with weirs thus regulated the
river, predominantly in terms of its salmon movements, and mediated the relations
of the riverside population with the river, particularly in terms of access to benefits
- in many ways similar to electricity generation with hydropower dams.
Although weirs represented the most elaborate fishing technique on the Kemi
River, it was only one technique among many that were employed according to
the time of year, the characteristics of the river at a particular locality and the con-
comitant behaviour of the salmon (Vilkuna 1975, pp. 35-39). In early spring, when
the ice broke and the river flooded, short weirs were built by individual families
on the shore in front of their houses. The current was much too rough and the river
too broad for the construction of larger weirs. Additionally, the salmon preferred
to swim close to the shore because the current was weaker there. Where possible,
Search WWH ::
Custom Search