REPORT

ON THE

Fish and Game Situation
in Connecticut

bee Made at the request of
| Hon. EVERETT J. LAKE

Governor of Connecticut

November 2, 1921

AUTHOR AND COMPILER

F. C. WALCOTT
NORFOLK, CONN.

fosaadooeoaooeo|
lace

Sy ,

a |
I!
ay
New York
State College of Agriculture
At Cornell University
Ithaca, N.Y.

Library

‘ornell Universi

Cornell University

Library

The original of this book is in
the Cornell University Library.

There are no known copyright restrictions in
the United States on the use of the text.

http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924000090674

REPORT

ON THE

Fish and Game Situation
in Connecticut

Made at the request of
Hon. EVERETT J. LAKE

Governor of Connecticut
November 2, 1921

AUTHOR AND COMPILER

F. C. WALCOTT
NORFOLK, CONN.

May 1, 1922.

F. C. Walcott, Esq.,
President State Board of Fisheries and Game
Hartford, Conn.

My dear Mr. Walcott :—

I wish to thank you sincerely for the report on the fish
and game situation in Connecticut which you have pre-
pared for me.

I wish that your Commission would have the document
printed and distributed very widely throughout the state.

It contains much that is not only interesting but in-
structive, and I am sure will inspire the people of our
State to help in the upbuilding of our fish and game pos-
sibilities.

With the intelligent aid of the people of the State, Iam
sure we can have in Connecticut not only a source of
much real pleasure, but a very large opportunity to ob-
tain an increased value of food product from this source.

I am sure the people of Connecticut will loyally sup-
port your Commission in its energies.

Very sincerely yours, ae

(Signed) EVERETT J, LAKE,
Governor.

301392

INDEX
Pages
F.C. WALCOTT, Introduction, Review of present con-
ditions and recommendations for the future. 5-11
MAP Showing State Parks and Game Refuges. (facing) 12
STATISTICAL 13-17

GAME

DR. WILLIAM T HORNADAY, Director, New York

Zoological Society. Which will Connecticut have--

extermination or preservation? 15-18
DR, LEONARD C. SANFORD, Member former Fish and

Game Commission. Connecticut’s present re-

sources in Fish and Game. 18-21
JOHN B. BURNHAM, President, American Game Pro-

tective Association. Is free public shooting a pos-

sibility? 21-23
LOUIS AGASSIZ FUERTES, Artist and Conservation-

ist. The preservation of game. 23-25
THE HONORABLE GEORGE SHIRAS, 3rd, Author

and Legislator. Sounds optimistic note. 25

R. P. HOLLAND, Vice-President, American Game Pro-

tective Association. Compares the activities of

New York, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts and New

Jersey, 26-31
JOHN M. PHILLIPS, Chairman, Pennsylvania Fish and

Game Commission. The game killed by the peo-

\ ple of Pennsylvania last year and its value. 31-82
DONALD; ‘MacVICAR, Expert game breeder. Hand-
rearing of ruffed grouse. 32-37
FISH
THE HONORABLE HUGH M. SMITH, Director of
Fisheries, Washington. The landlocked salmon. 37-38

DR. CHARLES H. TOWNSEND, Director, New York
Aquarium. How to improve Connecticut’s supply

of fresh water fish. 38-43
THE HONORABLE R. B. STOECKEL, The rivers and
ponds of Connecticut and their treatment. 43-46

JOHN W. TITCOMB, Expert consulting Fish Culturist.
Black Bass Culture as Applied to the State of
Connecticut. 46-51

Introduction, Review of Present Conditions and
Recommendations for the Future.

By Mr. F. C. WALCOTT.

October 26, 1921.

You have asked me to ascertain the facts concerning
the protection and propagation of fish and game in the
State of Connecticut, in so far as they relate to the existing
Fish and Game Commission and to suggest ways and
means of improving present conditions.

I have the honor to report the results of a preliminary
investigation.

It has taken more time than I supposed it would to com-
plete even a preliminary survey of the Fish and Game
situation in Connecticut. But the fact that you have re-
quested such a study has been the cause of genuine re-
joicing among the Eastern conservationists for it is the
first time, so far as I can ascertain, that a Governor of any
state has requested the conservationist to set forth the
facts and offer suggestions.

It is on account of your desire to get the facts impartial-
ly that those of us particularly interested in game and
fish propagation and protection are anxious to submit a
report which will sound an alarm and at the same time be
constructive.

The first step in the investigation was to compare the
results obtained by the Connecticut Commission with the
Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania and New Jersey
Commissions. This comparative table and the accompany-
ing chart compiled from data furnished by the respective
State Commissions, shows quite clearly the relative im-
portance of the Connecticut activities in the rearing and
killing of game in terms of an arbitrary unit of 1,000 of
population. These figures indicate that Connecticut
receives and spends less money in proportion to its popula-
tion than any of her neighboring states, consequently
raises fewer game birds and at a greater cost per bird.
The deer have been practically exterminated from the
State because of a continuous open season passed by the
legislature five years ago.

A study of the present game laws of the State show
that if the 27,000 sportsmen who obtained hunting licenses
last season had been sufficiently assiduous to kill even half
as much game as the law allows they would probably have
exterminated the last remnant of game in the State.

There is a large amount of literature upon the subject
of propagation and protection of both fresh and salt

5

water fish and I have obtained the opinion of some of
the leading experts, some of them residents of Connecti-
cut as to present conditions and future policy. These
opinions are unanimous on three points.

1. That there is practically no good fresh water fish-
ing left.

2. That the experiments in introducing foreign fish
have failed.

38. That the present laws are too liberal if the fish sup-
ply of the State is to be restored.

Connecticut is the third most densely populated state
in the Union containing 278 people per square mile.
Massachusetts first with 429 per square mile and New
Jersey second with 419. Connecticut has over three mil-
lion acres and it is estimated that approximately one-
third or one million acres are wild or semi-wild land,
more uncultivated land than she had one hundred years
ago. The area includes the freshwater ponds of which
there are 918 with a total surface area of 43,497 acres
and 7,619 miles of streams and rivers. In addition to
this Connecticut has 150 miles of coast line and the three
most important rivers, the Housatonic, Connecticut and
Thames, run from north to south, furnishing ideal feeding
lanes or routes for the migratory birds.

Connecticut’s population is concentrated in cities and
small manufacturing towns to an extent not found in any
other state in the Union with the possible exception of
Massachusetts. Hence, the importance of teaching the
people of Connecticut, young and old, the beauties and
benefits of the country that they may find the recreations
they need in park, field and forest and on the water. A
love of nature insures both health and happiness. It
teaches people simple living. It has a moral and ethical
value in the life of a community, state or nation, that is
incalculable.

No one questions the enormous value of insectivorous
birds to agriculture. No one any longer questions the de-
sirability of enticing the working people afield for their
holidays. Why cannot Connecticut lead instead of being
at the tail end of the procession in the movement toward
beautifying and restocking her waste areas with wild life,
the balance of which man invariably upsets when left to
himself to congregate and kill indiscriminately.

The Fish and Game Commission has been composed of
one representative from each of the eight counties since
1913, thus making a Commission of eight. The Com-

6

missioners since the adoption of this form of voluntary
service have been composed of men of the highest char-
acter, many of them well known through the State as pub-
lic spirited men of large affairs. Many of these Commis-
sioners have been willing and eager to give much of their
time and thought to the fascinating subject with which
they were entrusted, making it a kind of fad. But the
prevailing opinion among the sportsmen of the State is
that the fish and game are disappearing. A comparison
between Connecticut and her neighboring States in the
activities of their respective Fish and Game Commissions,
in so far as it can be made, shows Connecticut at the bot-
tom of the list and ones first impulse is to direct ones fire
at the Commission which produced such negative results
but a close study of the facts discloses weakness which
no Commission organized as this Commission has been by
counties could overcome.

The propagation and protection of non-migratory fish
and game and the regulation of the killing of such fish and
game are not county functions. They are State functions
just as the regulations governing migrating fish and game
are Federal functions. To decentralize a State’s duties
into Counties is fatal to good results. In the first place
a large unwieldly commission, no matter how high grade
its personnel, soon loses interest and ceases to function as
a commission. It is fortunate if a president or chairman
can be found who will bear the bulk of the work uncom-
plainingly with little but complaints for compensation.
The President of the former Commission has served the
State with a devotion most unusual. Divided responsibili-
ty begets inefficiency and the county system divides the
responsibility for results among eight counties in the case
of Connecticut.

The natural outlet for the activities of a Fish and Game
Commission is with and in State reserves known as game
sanctuaries but in Connecticut these are under the control
of a Park Commissioner, an effective one apparently and
well administered but not closely cooperating with the
Fish and Game Commission.

Furthermore a Park Commissioner’s duty is to make its
first selections of land contiguous to large centers of popu-
lation directly opposed to the first choice of a Fish and
Game Commission who require low lying isolated tracts
supplying natural food for birds and mammals and sur-
rounded by semi-wild land for the game overflow.

The State Forestry Department upon which the Fish
and Game Commission must depend for the treatment of

7

its reserves or sanctuaries has never closely cooperated
chiefly because there are no important game sanctuaries
in the State. It is the interdependence of these three de-
partments which has lead many of the States to consoli-
date its natural resources and the administration of them
under a Conservation Commission, a single headed re-
sponsible person of recognized ability as an organizer and
administrator, thus fixing the responsibility and insuring
complete coordination. The beneficial results obtained
from this centralized authority.in conserving and direct-
ing the natural resources of a state are almost incredible.
The results obtained by New York, Massachusetts and
Louisana under the direction of a conservation commis-
sioner illustrate what excellent results can be accom-
plished in a comparatively short time.

This is an ideal toward which Connecticut should per-
haps work but it is beyond the province of this report,
although it is the firm conviction of the writer that the
sooner there is a complete consolidation of the Forest,
Park, Fish and Game interests under an expert adminis-
trator, the sooner the people of Connecticut will realize
the wastefulness and inefficiency of the old methods and
secure the benefits, physical and ethical, which the inten-
sive centralized methods bring.

This report preliminary in its nature does not attempt
to criticise former commissioners believing that they have
been the victims of an antiquated method which could
never rally to its support either public sentiment or good-
will. Even vision and enthusiasm vanish when subdivided
eight times—so for the sake of brevity and directness
more than for the sake of argument, let us forestall fur-
ther comment upon the County Commission system and
determine if possible what can be accomplished in Con-
necticut and how. Can the State of Connecticut furnish
its citizens with fair shooting and fishing? What are the
obstacles which today stand in the way of accomplishing
this? If fair fishing and hunting can be supplied, is it
a desirable thing?

The wide divergence of opinion even among those best
qualified to advise, the lack of standardized reports and
carefully itemized accounts which would enable one to
determine the unit costs of game farming, the total ab-
sence of any figures on game killed and the fact that no
scientific estimate or survey of the game and fish of the
State has ever been made, greatly increases the difficulty
of placing before Your Excellency enough accurate data
to give you a clear picture of the existing state of affairs

8

in Connecticut. Therefore it seems advisable to make a
preliminary report forthwith upon such facts as can be
obtained in order to compare the Connecticut results with
her neighboring states, Massachusetts, New York, New
Jersey and Pennsylvania.

For the sake of clarity this report will deal first with
game birds and mammals and their enemies and second
with fish both fresh and salt water.

Broadly speaking, all lovers of nature throughout the
United States and Canada long to have the forests and
streams restocked with wild life. Every one subscribes
to the principles enunciated in the New York State con-
servationist’s creed: ‘That in a great democracy of free
peoples the protection of wild life and the preservation
of all other natural resources, which underlie national
prosperity and happiness, must depend finally, as does
the stability of the government itself, upon the support
and willing service of every citizen.”

In common with probably every one of the sportsmen
in the United States, we should go a step beyond the pro-
tection and preservation of wild life. We believe that a
man is a better man if he longs to go afield with rod and
gun and dog, and the camera should be included; and that
the realization of that longing brings him into close con-
tact with the best, the most uplifting things in life. This
is the best form of re-creation. The ultimate goal of
nearly every true sportsman is to become almost uncon-
sciously not only a lover of all nature, but an amateur field
naturalist.

The real sportsmen of America are our best citizens—
clean of mind and body, resourceful, strong and coura-
geous. The sportsmen of the allied countries rid the
world of imperialistic militarism, and the sportsmen of
the civilized nations today stand asa solid bulwark against
all forms of impractical and destructive radicalism. The
love of nature—of clean, vigorous sport in the open—is
the antidote to the softening, weakening influences of
modern civilization. Our battle then is to recover the
lost heritage which our ancestors wasted and failed to
protect, and having regained it to protect it for our chil-
dren and our children’s children.

This is a many sided and a far-reaching question. It
is nothing short of restoring the balance of nature inter-
rupted by the growth of large towns and cities. Much
progress has already been made toward this end, but the
real progress has been made only in the last generation
and a half, most of it in the last ten years and by a hand-

9

ful of devoted, self-sacrificing men to whom posterity will
owe much. Reasonable success is now assured; the wild
life can and will be saved. The best type of American
citizen will persist and, with him, man’s most wholesome
companions, animate and inanimate—the dog, the gun
and the rod. How can this be accomplished?

A skeleton outline of these principles and practices
which have thus far stood the test of time and been
adopted would include the following:

No public shooting can be maintained without thorough-
ly protected refuges.

Paid wardens are the only effective wardens. They
must be kept in service throughout the year and promoted
on the merit system to delevop an esprit de corps in the
state and Federal Government organizations.

Violations must be punished to develop a respect for
the law and, to apprehend the violators, a trained, skil-
ful secret-service force is necessary.

The winter feeding of game and the control of vermin
are important factors.

A single commissioner with full authority to take
charge of all matters concerning the conservation of the
state’s natural resources has proved far better than the
county system or the committee system, unless the mem-
bers of such committee grant the broadest powers and
fullest authority to the chairman of the commitee.

In a word, the most modern scientific business manage-
ment is essential to success. <A careful study of the best
methods in use today should be made as the basis of a
treatise upon the broad subject of game conservation, as
a handbook for those interested in conservation. Such
a treatise should include game breeding and feeding,
forest protection and planting of suitable natural foods,
the planning, selection and care of refuges, the regulation
of public shooting near the refuges, the selection and care
of overflow land or shooting areas near or contiguous to
refuges.

The best methods of arousing public interest in con-
servation and clean sport and the education of school
children to a better understanding of the virtues of field
and stream are fundamentals to success. Many of these
questions are regional and must be treated by zones with
careful regard to the available amount of cheap, suitable
land and watered areas for refuges.

There has been far too much generalizing in the past—
loose and very general theories have been advanced, with
little regard for the underlying biological facts and re-

10

gional variations. More extensive research departments
“or laboratories should be maintained by a few of the
more important game-producing states and by the Federal
Government under the direction of the bureau of Bio-
logical Survey to determine the exact biological facts re-

lating to breeding, feeding and life habits of birds and
mammals.

The Biological Survey should be frequently consulted
to prevent duplication or overlapping, supplemented, of
course, by the scientific work of the State. There should
be closer contact and more frequent meetings between
state and Federal officers.

In the eastern or more densely populated states there
is ample opportunity for interstate parks and close inter-
state cooperation affecting the fish and game supplies for
such parks, as well as forest control and the control of
stream pollution. Most of the rivers and large streams
are interstate.

The State Board of Education should cooperate in the
fullest possible way in bringing before the school children
the aims of the conservationists, the physical, moral and
ethical values of a day afield.

There is a loud call to duty. Strong men are needed,
men of experience and vision to mould public opinion,
to turn the agitated mind away from city strife and re-
bellion against life, toward the sunlight.

It is the workingman and his family who need most the
call of the wild. When their eyes are opened to the mys-
terious, mystic powers of nature, their gratitude will be
expressed in terms of better, citizenship, our State, our
Country better, its people far happier.

Game
Statistical

Comparative record of fish and game activities, Con-
necticut, New York, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts and New
Jersey.

New York State Game Farms cost,—Number of pheas-
ants and pheasant eggs distributed.

Number of deer reported killed in Connecticut last five
years. . ;

Number of ponds and lakes in Connecticut—their acre-

age, mileage of fresh water streams.
11

*poytwiied st uosves
ul Surjooys yorum uodn sotoe puBSNOY} USAES 0} 9014} ere e104} ‘eSnjor owes yove Sulpunotins ynq ‘poqyIqiu
-oid Ajaqnjosqe St Surooys yorum Ul set0e 000‘OOT 1040 e341, @ Sulurequod sasnjer owed 1.7% sey eluearAsuueg

“sadoe OSP'LGG's JO Bere oywdoIsse ue YPM SYIVq 97895 Jo daIsnjoxe seSnjoer ouied gq sBy BJOSOUUTHL
‘purl ayeatid Jo sepium 900.6 UBYy
arow Aq pepunog st yereMeed JO eyejg oy} UBYA JaZIVI PUB PURIST SpoyY FO 07e7g OY} JO OZIS OY} OOTM ST JOVIY
sty} Suryeods Ajaaryeredwu0g = *“eJVAL TOpUN PUB Sf S008 000‘S4z JNoge yoy Fo ‘sor0e ZOE BERT ynoge use ouley)
pue soeyoyey YSt{ “SeMesinN 97e4g9 OY} pue ‘gataselg oWed SST}IND oY} ‘suoTeATEsel BqnyD ‘s3ulidg edoyeieg
ye SUOTJBAIESAL 97g !YIVq [BUOTBUIOJUT LO SUOTIBATOSOL oUaIMR] “FG {UBT SUMOIg UYOF ‘Sspue[s] 98100) exe]
ayy pue ye [PSO “Ad YOUPuUoIpy Oy} Bors si UI JIM SEpNOUT YOryM ‘o}e4g YIOX MON SUOTPVALASET SOLO
“saSnfod Wes SB POY oq [[LM YOTUM Jo [[e “purl atrqnd fo sete 000‘000‘T peseyoind Ajjueer sey u0deIQ
“48010, 9481G SeLde OEP'P Sesval, puwy SUMO YNdTZP9UUOD
“syqed 0484g Satoe [G)‘p SUMO JNoTJDOUUOD
“purl oqnd setae 000‘OOT SUMO SHeSNYRSeY

‘avatde gg'e$ ynoqe ye syuRsveyd Jay sAnq elUBATASUUeds

‘(ATWO sues) OO'LES'808$ - PL Lyy‘osss eo res'ses 9TGI-906T Ssesuedxm

UWOISSIUULOD

auey pue yYsiq [enuue asei0aAy

2 Oo FOT'PIS‘S$ par ewes onpea pezeulysa

i Ren i “ 0°S79'LZ2$ ysy fo anjea peyewmyysg

Lp'99$ 00°000'0ZZ$ OT'8Z$ BB TSO'9PS$ OS GE$ LoEPe‘99e$ OS 08s b0-086'Trs ewes pue

ysl} UOISIAIG SpUaWESINGSIP [FOL

ores * sass PS II$ peywqiy

-sip quesvoyd Jad 7s00 aypeulxoiddy

see i ; LUL$ 60°98h'29$ LPEs so PSS'ses 98°0T$ 00°000'9TS syueUasingsip WIey sweH

B89PF SLSSSLPIS PLES SLGET'GSIS PITSS 00'O6H'GHIS OF LES SLPSL P8a$ 00'SS$ 00°968'6ES sasuaory Worz enuesey [8701

00°98 ZShZ‘OrT OO'6r 896'SEF 00°SS eL6°S9S 00°%% 960°88 eye

pue Yysif pensst sasuddll aqequinyy

. Osh 00007 OOTT TO9'SZTt PTA SHON

91 32g 02° 888 os" 000‘S 00° 00°02 10° LOT parry 129

00°89 009‘L0S PIPL esnory payny

Io LLG‘T 09°% 000°8Z ose gag‘cs ((y40da140N) PILL syuesvoud

; 63° ZGP'e 097s =. L96‘TE 00% 3 «ggL‘Té ot 09T‘Z paynqiazsip ssze juesvoyd

o6T 000'9 0oT 106s 50° T96'S oor TL66 06° 998'T pemgiysip squessoyd

OZ6L uoseag

pox: Gas ‘O'dPT ‘Ordrl ‘OdFL ‘O'dhz OZET-OT6T WMOIS JUD ted

808 LOY OLT SBT 8LZ sat erenbs

qed ‘ON) 0Z6T uoryeindog Ayrsusd

b2e'8 9928 9CI'SP yOZ‘6r 996'F Sa etenbg Jo 1equnN

PLE'SSl's 998°398'S 6S1'0L'8 VPL'F88 OT Tg9‘088'T OZ6T “OrZB[Ndog
‘dog ‘dog “dog “dog ‘dog
oot 000T 000T 000T 000T
ied "ON dad ‘ON, Jad “ON ded ‘ON ied ‘oO

NC
AUSUM’ MAN SLLASQHOVSSVA VINVATASNNGd MUOA MON LQOLLOaNNOO

12

NEW YORK STATE.
ie ae 1914 1915 1917

Estimated Commercial

Valuation output Hatch-

eries and Game Farm... $215,454.62 $246,722.00
Pheasants Distributed....... 2,949.00 6,479 9,141
Pheasants Eggs Distri. 31,096.00 52,015.06 65,049.00
Number of Farms ...........+ 1 2 3
Cost of Maintenance and

operation Div. of Fish

and Game less Game

Farm Expenses ...........+5 $305,538.59 $357,437.82 $386,170.94
Game Farm Maintenance

& Expenses ....ccccccccceeeee $7,254.02 $7,307.46 $32,433.74
Total sive ocecn eae etivane $312,792.61 $864,745.28 $418,604.68

1918 1919 1920
Estimated Commercial

Valuation Game Farm,

Pheasants and Eggs ...... $54,708.50 $78,272.25
Pheasants Distributed ..... 11,415 9,206 9,911
Pheasants Eggs Distri. 59,318 55,400 91,735
Number of Farms ............5 3 3 3
Cost of Maintenance and

operation Div. of Fish

and Game less Game

Farm Expenses ...........+ $421,045.72 $484,865.44 $550,893.11
Game Farm Maintenance

and Expenses ............000 $32,209.48 $32,073.14 $35,554.63
WOtall | wevessessevswvecssedetiveovsews 453,255.20 $516,441.58 $586,447.74

CONNECTICUT
Deer Reported Killed.
1 Year. 2 Years. 2 Years.
Counties Aug. 1, 1915-1916 1917-1918 1919-1920
Hartford sss ciwetescvasssesseecece 279 145 27
New Haven .........ccseeeceneeeee 172 66 23
New London ............seeeeeeee 220 90 33
Hairtield, svciscosvessivencveveress 118 46 11
Windham .........cceceeseceeeeeeee 169 118 24
Litchfield .. as 351 174 51
Middlesex . a 156 82 13
Tolland: secscorcteansvovecisentvies 127 67 32
1,591 788 214
788

214 FOR FIVE YEARS—DEER
KILLED 2,593
2,593 AVERAGE PER ANNUM 518

13

Pheasants Distributed.
Per Annum Eggs

Per Annum

distributed
2 Years 2 Years
1915-1916 2622 1311 5821 2910
1917-1918 2712 1358 6667 3333
1919-1920 2532 1266 4320 2160
FOR SIX YEARS PHEASANTS
DISTRIBUTED ..............4 7866
AVERAGE PER ANNUM ............ 1311
FOR SIX YEARS—
EGGS DISTRIBUTED ........... 16,808
AVE. PER ANNUM .........00008 2,801
Mallards Distributed.
Ducks Per Annum Eggs Per Annum
distributed
1915-1916 766 383 513 256
1917-1918 857 428 732 366
FOR FOUR YEARS—DUCKS 1623
AVERAGE PER ANNUM .... 405
FOR FOUR YEARS—EGGS 1245
AVERAGE PER ANNUM .... 311

Estimated Areas of Lakes and Ponds in Connecticut

and total mileage of rivers and streams.

Total area of lakes Areas between Areas over

& ponds under 20A 20 & 100A 100 Acres
No. Area No. Area No. Area
Fairfield County ..... 85 420A 20 813A 10 2,248 A
Hartford County..... 97 555A 25 1002A 138 5,085 A
Litchfield County..... 62 894A 24 868A 19 4,957A
Middlesex County.... 51 340A 12 948A 14 6,007A
New Haven County. 89 447A 20 441A 15 2,364A
New London County 107 571A 386 1024A 25 8,297 A
Tolland County ..... 50 289A 12 1982A 9 2,088 A
Windham County .... 94 451A 27 686A 8 1,875 A

TOTALS ooo eceeeeee acts =
685 3,467A 170 7,659 A 113 32,371 A

170

635

DOtal ees esccce ots ccsenctedavauanes 918
Total acreage of lakes and pond s.........cccssssessccccccscsesseeceseeene 43,497

Total length of rivers in miles:

Pairfield: County: cccccccsteetivcccsests Saesaazincenizctecaecerveesteenseresees 967 mi
Hartford County ........... 1,206 mi
Litchfield County ........... 1,631 mi
Middlesex County ......... 495 mi
New Haven County 973 mi
New London County 917 mi
Tolland County ..........ccs00 694 mi
Windhari: COUnCy cccccsccccccdecesneiseevsasceseceoscsascettasccreredabernesnnai 736 mi
MO TAS ccsesnvassseuccbeveorateed eee ay encoun eieov ose ea aueatea sna cetuonseeuelavius 7,619 mi

Above survey made in 1917 but no census of fish or fish

food has ever been made.
14

Dr. William T. Hornaday, Director of the New York
Zoological Society and the Permanent Wild Life Protec-
i Fund, says, with reference to the Connecticut situa-
ion—

One point stands out clearly and that is that in view
of all the circumstances it would be a good thing for some
one to put out a circular and send it broadcast through-
out the state of Connecticut, asking people ‘Which will
you have, extermination or preservation?” and telling
them that if they want preservation they have got to do
some work and sacrifice some money in order to have it.
They should be told that if they want any game preserved
for the future in Connecticut, the people of Connecticut
have got to wake up and conserve it just as the people of
Pennsylvania have done.

It might be that an alarm gong beaten loudly and stri-
dently would so scare the people of Connecticut that
enough of them would wake up and do something so that
the situation might be saved. I think the first step is
the sounding of the alarm and the putting of the crucial
question.

Let us look over the cards, as they lie face up on the
table and see what they reveal.

First. We see glorious federal and state laws for the
protection of the insectivorous and non-game birds, well
observed in most places, but in some places shamefully
abused by alien shooters. That abuse is because it is
an utter impossibility for any state to put into the field
enough wardens to watch every alien who goes out hunt-
ing with a license in his pocket.

Second. Wenow see game bird hunting, reduced, very
largely, to the hunting of ducks and geese, with a very
little shooting of six-shore-birds, quail and grouse.

Third. We see in the near future no wild game re-
maining save waterfowl, rabbits hares and white-tailed
deer, and a trace of introduced pheasants. Anyone who
thinks that quail and grouse of any species whatever can,
by hand made propagation, keep the sport of shooting
them on permanent basis, makes a sad mistake. It can
not be done!

Fourth. We see that the propagation of pheasants on
game farms is worth while, though it is not a great factor
in the production of sport.

Fifth. As we have all said many times, guns and gun-
ners are increasing at an enormous rate, while many
kinds of game are growing more and more scarce; and
the open seasons are entirely too long.

15

Sixth. We have seen that bag limits are not saving the
upland game birds, partly because there are ten times
too many bags!

Seventh. For land game we see all kinds of natural
cover and food diminishing through drainage, cultivation,
timber-cutting and fires. We see the natural enemies
of the game holding it at great disadvantages; and the
hard winters steadily are becoming harder and more
destructive to feathered game.

Finally. We see that the resident hunting licenses
fees in the various states, one and all, without a single
exception, are ridiculously and absurdly below the real
value of the sweeping wholesale privileges that they
confer.

In 1911 we ascertained that 1,486,288 hunting licenses
were issued by 27 states, out of our total of 48 states.
Computing by averages the allotment of gunners for the
21 states then not issuing licenses, the total arrived at
of sure-and-certain hunters in 1911 was 2,642,194. The
number of other men hunting without licenses and con-
trary to law was believed to be sufficient to bring the
total up to at least 3,000,000. Some competent authori-
ties long ago estimated the total as high as 5,000,000.

Since 1911 there have been some very great increases
in the number of licensed hunters.

Here is one index of that increase:

In 1911 New York issued 150.220 hunting licenses.
In 1915 New York issued 188,216 huntng licenses.
In 1918 New York issued 230,000 hunting licenses.

This means an increase of 80,000 since 1911, not count-
ing the farmers and tenants who now may legally hunt
game on their own farms without licenses.

In 1919 Pennsylvania issued 400,000 licenses. Now,
it is estimated that 200,000 Pennsylvania farmers hunt
on their own lands without licenses, but accordig to law,
making a total of 600,000 active hunters in that one state.

What Can We Do?

Plant millons of berry, nut and seed bearing bushes,
trees and plants as special food for wild birds. This will
go far towards protecting cherries, grapes and other
fruits from attack by robins and other birds that we can
not kill. Good species to plant are wild cherry, mulber-
ry, juniper, mountain ash, hawthorne and juneberry.

Feed upland game birds and other birds in winter
about 10,000 times more than ever yet has been done,
and provide shelters for quail.

16

Tie up all roaming dogs from May 1 to September 1
each year, and save the ground-nesting birds from their
rapacious jaws. One free-hunting hound does more
harm than 20 sportsmen.

Kill all hunting or traveling cats.

Kill weasels, coyotes, great horned owls, barred and
screech owls, Cooper, sharp-shinned and duck hawks;
and crows and night herons whenever they start in to
feed on ducklings.

Confiscate the gun of every gunner convicted of kill-
ing game illegally, or of trepassing when hunting.

States like New York, New Jersey and Massachusetts,
permit no alien to own or to use a gun. (“The Penn-
sylvania alien gun law is constitutional,” says the U. S.
Supreme Court.) :

All gentlemen sportsmen will respect the rights of
owners who post their lands against hunting; and all
game-hog trespassers should be compelled to do so, by
stringent laws and heavy fines. Farmers will not feed
and protect birds when the sure result is an annual horde
of insolent and defiant trespassers. In some states the
acceptance of pheasants from a state game farm auto-
matically opéns that farm to free shooting! This is in-
tolerable and can not endure.

If American sportsmen wish that sport in the open
with the gun and rod shall sanely and sensibly be saved
from EXTINCTION and established on a continuing
basis, all they need to do to secure it is to ask for it, in
clear and decisive tones!

It has been proven over and over that it is possible for
wise and timely laws, adequately enforced, to maintain
game and sport. More than that, in rare cases they
have even brought back both from the edge of Oblivion.
The white-tailed deer and elk are the most responsive
of all our big game in coming back and re-creating deer-
hunting. The wild ducks and geese can and do come
back, when the seed stock is adequate, and the breeding
and feeding grounds are not destroyed.

But the upland game birds are different. They are
mostly non-migratory, winter and summer they are sur-
rounded by enemies of many kinds, their food supply
day by day and hour by hour is diminishing, and their
natural protecting cover is being taken away from them.
Nothing but quick work and strong and intelligent work
is going to save any grouse and quail shooting anywhere
in the United States for the future generations of sports-
men.

17

As instances of what sportsmen can do when they reso-
lutely make up their minds, take the case of the geese
and ducks of the United States. The stoppage of the
sale of game and spring shooting has not only saved the
sport of duck-shooting, but it has greatly increased it
over what it was even ten years ago. Today it is the
universal testimony that the supply of ducks and geese
has enormously increased—since the migratory bird law
was enacted. SPORTSMEN’S CLUBS AND THE PRI-
VATE LAND OWNERS HELP PRESERVE THE REM-
ae OF OUR GAME. THE STATE MUST DO THE

EST.

In Europe it has been proven over and over that pri-
vate owners of large hunting grounds have preserved
sport for centuries. The deer forests and the grouse
moors prove it. But that game has not been cursed by
millions of free shooters, each one asserting the rights of
a sovereign, and sometimes quite able to defy owners
while trespassing on fenced and posted lands. In “free”
America our laws against trespass on fenced property
are a howling farce. They are a disgrace to a civilized
nation. They represent the fetich of “‘personal liberty”
brutally thrusting aside the most fundamental of all
property rights, the right to enjoy peaceable possession.

It is high time that every state should protect the
fenced property of its citizens against armed and dan-
gerous, and sometimes defiant, game-hunting trespassers.

I have said all that I have to say.

Pro. Henry Fairfield Osborn, the author of ‘“‘The Age of
Mammals,” now solemnly says: ‘‘We are now at the
end of the Age of Mammals!”

It is my fear that man’s rapacity and greed for wild
life now is so great that nothing will avail to save for the
next century anything more of it than mere tattered rem-
nants of a once glorious fauna,—rats, mice and English
sparrows.

Dr. Leonard C. Sanford, naturalist and member of the
Fish and Game Commission of Connecticut for eight
years, gives the following review of the Connecticut sit-
uation on game and fish:

General conditions in Connecticut—small state, thickly
populated. Large foreign population. Good roads, all
covers, ponds and streams easily reached by auto. Auto-
mobiles greatest present menace to all game. Game legis-
lation against auto in some states. Local methods for
administrating penalties for game violation wretched.

18

County juror system poor. In every possible instance
bring cases to Federal courts. Particularly urge co-
operation with E. W. Nelson, head of Federal Migratory
Bird and Game Organization of Connecticut.

Deer. I do not believe there are many in the state out-
side of parks. Advise their extinction by orderly legal
methods.

Rabbits. Popular in some secttions. Unpopular in
others. Recent commission did nothing toward propaga-
ting them because of divided opinion.

Upland Game—Partridges, Quail, Woodcock.

1. Partridges. More abundant in May 1921 than in
recent years, statement made from observation and re-
ports from Northern, Central and Eastern part of state.
I believe the closed season for the years 1919 and 1920
cea a good breeding season in 1920 and 1921 are respon-
sible.

Only chance of preservation consists in occasional
close year or years. Open seasons that are always
short. Small bag limits. Effective Warden Service.
Pheasant propagation to relieve ruffed grouse.
Sanctuaries absolutely important but should be selected
and guarded carefully. I believe the present warden
service remarkably good considering lack of funds. Ad-
vise new commission securing at once from old commis-
sion a list of wardens that have been found unsuitable.
Undoubtedly many of these men will attempt to receive
re-instatement.

Methods of Pheasant distribution up to July 1, 1921
useless and objectionable. Advise close cooperation with
Massachusetts, Rhode Island and New York wardens as
worst violating in Connecticut is along the state borders.
Get complete list of suspected violators from old com-
mission.

Quail. Negligible. No use in propagation because of
weather conditions, south shore of Connecticut at present
about the Northern limit of this bird.

There are probably from 4,000 to 6,000 in state. A
large proportion of covers are easily protected and care-
fully guarded by land owners. Shooting does not ap-
parently affect numbers.

Wocdcock. Southern Connecticut a famous migratory
route. This bird should receive every possible protec-
tion in Connecticut, especially in southern part of state.
Migration at its height between October 15th and No-

19

vember list. This is a most important period for warden
service. Assistant wardens and protectors should be
used during this time. Cooperation with Federal authori-

ties in the matter of woodcock violation essential.
Every possible woodcock violation should be tried in
Federal courts.

Ducks. Black duck and Broad bill (greater scaup)
never more numerous. In greater numbers than between
1890 and 1900. Wood duck more plentiful than in fifteen
years. This is of course due to stopping Spring shooting.
Black ducks have been greatly helped by Mallard farms.
I believe in propagating Mallards in suitable places be-
cause of effect on Black duck.

Sea ducks, especially old squaws have markedly de-
creased due probably to destruction on northern breed-
ing grounds. Rail only of consequence on Connecticut
river marshes. Local birds are shot up in first week of
season. There is probably little change in numbers in
recent years. Would cut bag limit to twenty and allow
one gun but sixty for the season. Rail are migratory
birds. Shore birds are practically negligible. Migra-
tion over mostly before September 1, season opens.

The Fish situation in the state is utterly bad and here
the new comission has its greatest opportunity for results.
Ponds, rivers and streams are all easily accesible in autos.
All ponds and other rivers are fished out in the early part
of season. The state is badly polluted, every effort
should be made to get public sentiment in favor of clean
water.. There is only one good hatchery in the state. At
least six are needed. Game funds cannot be used for
fish purposes. Any extension of fish propagation will
have to be paid for from rod license and special appro-
priation.

The most important fish to be cultivated in the state
are native brook trout. Only open streams can be sup-
plied by commission. Owing to the large number of
posted streams in the state a comparatively small supply
of trout would go along way. I do not believe in salmon
propagation.

White perch would be a most valuable fish to cultivate
but the supply of all pond fish should be kept up. I be-
lieve in the general rule of keeping up the native supply.
Don’t put in new fish. Question of raising bait (smelt)
for larger ponds should be considered. The destruction
of salt water fry by small meshed nets all along the Con-
necticut shore of the sound is a most serious menace and
requires stringent and well enforced laws. In this con-

20

nection it seems to me that one of the new commissioners
should be well up in fish culture. There is no limit to
the results that might obtain if the public realizes what
it will enjoy if pollution can be reduced. The shad situa-
tion has improved much in the past two years owing to
the legislation of 1919. When measures were taken to
protect their spawning beds. The lobster situation is
good. The work of the board has certainly produced re-
sults. Lobsters have steadily decreased in the past five
years. There is no Atlantic State where lobsters have
been more shamefully destroyed than in Connecticut.
Even Labrador and New Foundland have long closed
seasons which are strictly enforced. Connecticut sets out
lobster pots 365 days in the year. It is a difficult matter
to enforce the law on short lobsters and female lobsters
except in the market.

Mr. John B. Burnham, President of the American Game
Protective Association, has put the case of free public
shooting as forcibly as anyone. His statement follows:

Events in the next few years in my judgment will de-
termine whether we will continue our present system of
free shooting in this country or adopt the European plan.
In other words, whether the man who owns a gun and has
the price of a box of shells and nothing more will continue
shooting game or be wiped off the map for all time as a
sportsman. We have been approaching this crisis threat-
ening the elimination of free shooting for many years,
but our innate Amercanism has fought against it. The
organized sportsmen have originated expedients not pos-
sible in other countries and so postponed the evil day.

It is a legislative battle and an educational battle.
Many people honestly believe that it is useless to try and
preserve any shooting for the non-land holding sports-
men. The country is filling up so rapidly, and land in-
creasing in acreage value so fast, they say, that to meet
interest charges on the investment game must pay its
share and be bought the same as any other crop. Itisa
fact, as they point out, that across the water, land dedi-
cated to game raising produces a much larger harvest
of game to the square mile than similar acres in this
country, and they tell us that our only salvation lies in
copying European methods and laws.

I do not agree with this, first, because our American
system, which is the growth of a hundred and fifty years,
is better than the European system, secondly, because I

21

do not think the necessity exists for discarding it. I be-
lieve it is better for a great many men in all walks of life
to have moderate opportunity to hunt rather than this
sport be confined to limited class. From the patriotic view-
point, field sports furnish a practical antidote to Bolshe-
vism on the one hand and on the other the experience
thus gained best fits men for the raw material from which
armies are made. Can we afford to sacrifice either of
these national advantages? How would we be better
off, to have game in greater abundance on smaller areas
killed by a smaller number of men who had the price to
pay for the sport even if this game were put on the market
as a source of food supply? It is utilized as food in any
case.

We might consider it if the necessity existed for making
the change, but I cannot see that there is such a necessity.
I admit at once the sacred right of property, and J do not
believe that the land owner should be obliged to let Tom,
Dick and Harry trample his standing grain in pursuit of
game, but there is no reason why Tom, Dick and Harry
cannot have a place to shoot as well as the club man.
Two thirds of Connecticut is wild land where the shooter
takes nothing the land owner provided and even in Iowa,
perhaps the star agricultural state of the Union, there
are 3,250,000 acres of non-tillable land, which is more
land than the state of Connecticut. There is still ample
room to gun provided the shooter is not put off the land.

So long as the ordinary shooter does not trespass on
posted land, he has a fundamental right to take this wild
game wherever he finds it. This country has a different
law than that of any other country. It is that the wild
game belongs, not to the land owner, but to the people.
This is the decision of our highest tribunal, the Supreme
Court of the United States. I believe in giving men of
wealth every opportunity to increase the game on their
land after European methods, but I do not believe in a
dog in the manger policy which would tie up most of the
remaining land while only a small portion would in reality
be used for game propagation. Our laws today recognize
just this point. They encourage the land owner to grow
the game that experience has shown can best be increased
artificially, and they give him the sole right to kill such
‘game. As a corollary, should not the public have the
right to shoot on non-utilized lands when no damage is
done and the owner does not care?

A pshycological revolt against game laws and game
protection. This wave has involved many shooters as

22

well as other citizens. It is a part of the general world
unrest, and also a re-crudescence of our American out-
lawry against things ‘‘verboten.”” There are many fac-
tors entering into it, the high price of ammunition for one
thing. This has caused cuts in appropriations and all
kinds of bills to do away with game commissions or hamp-
er their work. Many states have suffered in many ways.

Mr. Louis Agassiz Fuertes, artist and one of the fore-
most advocates of the conservation of wild life, writes in
the October North American Review as follows:

It is significant that in countries where game is plenti-
ful it often largely consists of species introduced from
other lands, after the indigenous species had become so
rare as no longer to afford good sport. The Asiatic
pheasant have practically supplied the field of all Europe
for two or three centuries, and are fast becoming the
game-bird par excellence of the Northern United States.
It is well, for herein lies about the last chance for survival
of such splendid native species as the ruffed grouse, north-
ern quail and several kinds of western grouse.

In such a country as ours, where each of the forty-
eight States considers itself sovereign within its borders,
and the game as its possession while present, it has been
exceedingly difficult to arrive at satisfactory conserva-
tion laws and impossible to enforce them.

The Bureau of Biological Survey at Washington, emi-
nently fitted for the task by virtue of its years of amassing
detailed information as to the migrations, breeding habits,
food and general economy of every species of American
animal, was given the labor and responsibility of zoning
the entire country and grouping States with respect to
open seasons on all species of migratory game, and an
opportunity of suggesting model laws for these groups of
States, which should do away in large measure with the
old border irregularities rising from the operation of va-
riously different laws on the two sides of State, or even
county, lines. This, now happily accomplished, plus
the elimination of spring shooting of migratory game-birds
and sale of game all over the United States, has already
worked a marvelous benefaction upon most of migra-
tory species.

The people most given to breaking the game-laws are
aliens from Southern Europe, notably the Italians, who
are inveterate small-bird hunters whenever they can get
an opportunity. This habit they bring with them.

23

species of Central Europe, and few that travel that
Italy is a natural bird-trap for all the migratory
route get by. Italy has again and again been vain-
ly appealed to by the other countries of Europe to
cease the trapping, snaring, shooting, liming and other
methods of catching the migrating species that for a sea-
son visit that penisula. There have been for a century
few edible species that nest and rear their young in Italy
as compared with Central and Northern Europe. It is
easy to see the temptation our meadow-larks, robins, cat-
birds and flickers offer, and how little effort these new
citizens in the “Land of the Free” exercise to resist it.
The weakest link in the chain of protection of game and
other natural resources lies in the power of politics to
change, at brief intervals, the personnel of those bodies
of men who, by knowledge and experience, have come to
be of inestimable value to this necessary work. This
very year the Governor of a most important State so far
undervalued the worth of its conservation machinery
as to remove the most effective Commissioner the State
has ever had; a man who, when public funds failed,
privately supplied the necessary money in large amounts.
The functions of the Commission were reduced to only
asmall section of the State and greatly curtailed in power
even there. Over the rest of the State the efficient system
of game wardens, men especially trained and instructed
in the all year round care of the game and other wild
life was abolished and the enforcement of the conserva-
tion laws was put into the totally inexperienced hands of
the State constabulary; the supporting funds were with-
drawn from the State game farms just as they were pay-
ing largely, both in material produced and in turning out
well trained and efficient men capable of carrying on the
work of wise conservation at a time when public interest
was at the crest of the wave. It is such lack of apprecia-
tion and support as this which goes far toward killing in-
terest, for the time at least, in the nation wide effort to
preserve for posterity what is left of the once abundant
and extraordinarily rich native fauna of this continent.
And the time has come when even a temporary relaxa-
tion in so important a plan may mean the total loss of all
that has been done. Some States have no organized
State service, notably North Carolina, Florida and Missis-
sippi, and some authorize the issue of almost unlimited
hunting licenses, allowing the killing of more game than
actually exists in the State. At large, however, the
tendency seems to be ever toward the wise and proper

24

safe-guarding of the remnant, and the encouragement
of all game and other innocent wild life to propagate
and increase.

Much that was formerly considered ‘‘waste land,’”’ such
as fresh water marshes, shallow lakes, river overflows,
swamp woods and salt marshes with a wilderness of mar-
ginal cover has been reclaimed for agricultural and other
uses only to be found entirely unsuited for these purposes
because of wet sub-soil, tidal flow, salt, sour soil or sterile
marly components which render it useless for any ‘‘practi-
cal’ purpose. Like much of New England, which is
best suited for (and should have been left) forest land,
these wild areas really serve their best purpose as refuges
for the support and propagation of the numerous species
of wild birds that congregate to use them as nature has
taught them to do. Even though many such areas now
exist in a condition more or less sterile for these purposes,
nearly all could by a little skillful planting and stocking
be made valuable and attractive gathering places for
the wild fowl which form the bulk of the migratory game
of our whole land.

The Honorable George Shiras, 3rd, author and chiefad-
vocate of flashlight photography of game, who has long
since given up the rifle for the more difficult and exciting
sport of photography, is still one of our foremost authori-
ties for the protection of wild life and believes in more
and better shooting. He writes:

I believe that in any of the eastern states in which
there is sufficient cover and food, a program that includes
the following will insure satisfactory results :—

1. Game refuges—some closed throughout the year
and others open for public shooting.

2. Systematic restocking with species adapted to lo-
cal conditions.

8. Buck law for antlered game; low bag limits and
prohibiting the carrying of guns during a closed season.

4. An efficient warden system, retention based upon
character of service.

5. A license system sufficient to maintain a proper
game commission and which must be composed of high-
grade men and free from all political influence.

Under such conditions, there is no eastern state that
cannot have a supply of game equalling or surpassig
that of the pioneer days.

25

Mr. R. P. Holland, Vice President of the American
Game Protective Assiociation, reports as follows, with
reference to the activities of some of Connecticut’s neigh-
boring States, New York, Massachusetts, New Jersey and
Pennsylvania.

New York State operates three game farms and has also
set aside for recreational purposes, but not for game ex-
clusively, two large parks known as the Adirondack and
Catskill Parks. The New York Forest Preserve contains
approximately 2,000,000 acres. The New York State
Game Farms distributed to applicants over the state in
the year 1918, 59,318 pheasant eggs. From the returns
required by law, it was ascertained that 35 per cent. were
hatched and the birds reared to the age of liberation.
This same year the game farms planted 11,415 half-grown
pheasants. Therefore, in 1918 her State Game Farms
were responsible for approximately 33,000 pheasants.

New York State requires that all gunners report the
game killed each year before they are entitled to a hunt-
ing license the following season. These reports show that
in 1919 35,855 pheasants were taken. As the law per-
mits only cock birds to be killed, it would appear that the
number of cock birds taken by the gunners exceeded the
number of hens and cocks produced by the game farms
the preceding year. I believe this is good proof that
New York’s game farms are fulfilling their mission and
are stocking the state with pheasants which are repro-
ducing abundantly in the wild state.

In 1919 the New York Commission had 1,392 applica-
tions for eggs and 604 applications for birds. They
distributed 91,735 eggs and 9,911 birds, a wonderful
increase over the preceding year. For the fiscal year
ending June, 1920, it is estimated that the commercial
value of the eggs and birds distributed from the game
farms and of adult birds obtained from breeding stock as
approximately $78,272.25.

Below is a recapitulation showing how these figures
are arrived at including the disbursements of game bird
farms covering the same period:

DISBURSEMENTS, GAME BIRD FARMS

DAlATIES: cosszcnsessrscesccnsuscevslnusiins deteivs susasetecoueesce te $12,872.50
Wages, temporary .........cccccccccccscccscssssseescecees 2.965.31
Maintenance and operation ............. cc cceeeeceses 19,716.82

Total, smesseetececncvessescecs: $35,554.63

(This of course, does not include the actual cost of game
farms in first instance, nor is anything charged for depre-
ciation.)

In the year 1918, 8,293 deer were killed in New York
State. In 1919 when it was legal to shoot does, approxi-
mately 20,000 animals were taken.

From the reports made by gunners on the stubs of the
1920 licenses it was learned that during 1918 the follow-
ing migratory birds were killed:

DUCKS iadidemaesayshaduisieeiewivieetoances 109,663
Greater yellow-legs ........ eee 3,556
Lesser yellow-legs .........cecesseeees 2,848
COOES: S55 dec cents cvtecieiderivavectiiednes 1,974
GEESE? oo socace cues siesedavenieeceseccius 1,380
Rail8 ecssesescucevctes 1,382
Golden plover 1,214
Black-bellied plover ................ 1,045
Brant occ. d.t5es ccsniiaseensadieceaeercaneinns 241
GaVAUlS: cccoussesgensaadeasdevesedenceys 216
OLA. vs serntaraoncaneehirehoresetoauaeeei ey 82

AM Ota aiken eed 123,601

For the fiscal year ending June 30, 1920, $273,361.90
net was received by the sale of hunting and trapping
licenses in New York State. Of this amount $32,000
was returned for non-resident licenses. Also, $11,372.28
was paid into the state treasury for non-resident fishing
licenses. New York appropriates its money from the
General Fund, and. in this period the Commission ex-
pended for game protection $366,943.57 and for fish cul-
ture $159,831.82.

The New York Conservation Commission is encourag-
ing the establishment of branch game farms by sports-
men’s associations, these farms to hatch the eggs and rear
the birds only. All eggs are produced at the state in-
stitutions. One or more of these farms have been proved
very successful. Mr. Rogers of the State Game Farm
takes great interest in them and gives them all the help
and instruction necessary. The Broome County Sports-
men’s Association received 4,540 eggs in 1920 and liber-
ated 2,901 birds.

In Pennsylvania the Game Commission does not believe
it to their advantage to operate a game farm. Instead,
they purchase both birds and eggs from commercial
dealers for the stocking of their covers. During 1920 they

27

expended $56,259.91 for the purchase of game birds
and game bird eggs. This is exclusive of expressage
and feeding until liberation. In 1919 they expended
$28,115.60 for the same purpose.

Pennsylvania thoroughly endorses the game sanctuary
—public shooting ground principle and they feel that
because of the limited available supply of game for re-
stocking purposes their efforts in this direction are negli-
gible, as compared with the results of their work in
protecting the native wild life.

They have-in operation 27 game refuges and 7 auxiliary
refuges, all surrounded by public shooting grounds. The
state still has 10,000,000 acres of uncultivated land.
available for this purpose.

Twenty-five years ago Pennsylvania was shot out. To-
‘day the gunners of that state are furnished with a brand
of sport that cannot be equaled in many states. Not
only does it furnish the game, but Pennsylvania has gone
farther and furnished her citizens with a place to shoot.
This is the result of her game refuge—public shooting
ground policy.

The maximum refuge is approximately 9 miles in cir-
-cumference and they contain from 1,700 to 3,200 acres.
Around each refuge are set aside from 3,000 to 7,000 acres
of land that is a public shooting ground on which any
man may go and shoot, provided he complies with the
laws of state and nation.

Pennsylvania’s report shows that in 1919 they pur-
chased 3,961 pheasants and over 30,000 pheasant eggs
and that approximately 23,000 pheasants were reported
killed in 1920. Over 40,000 wild fowl, including shore
birds, were reported killed in 1919.

The reports of the Pennsylvania conservation commis-
sion show that 3,800 deer were killed in 1920, 2,913 in
1919 and 1,754 in 1918. Four hundred thirty two thous-
and, two hundred thirty eight resident hunting licenses
and 1,725 non-resident licenses were issued in 1920.
This is approximately 5 per cent. of the population of
the state and does not include approximately 600,000
farmers, who hunt and were not required by law to have
a license.

The reports from this state give no statistics as to viola-
tions of the law or the number of records of convictions.
All moneys go into the game fund and are expended
for salaries of game protectors, purchase of game and
general expenses of the department. In 1920, $308,537.97
was spent. Pennsylvania has authorized force of eighty

28

wardens in addition to her preserve keepers who have
the same powers.

Those in charge of the conservation work in this state
lay much emphasis on the necessity of caring for the
birds on the refuges by planting fruit bearing trees and
shrubs and feeding grain in severe weather. Their re-
fuge keepers are constantly engaged in trapping vermin
and the state game department also pays bounties for
certain predacious animals.

Massachusetts operated three game farms and also has
fourteen tracts of land set aside as bird refuges. In
the year 1919 Massachusetts spent ....23,371.88 in pro-
pagation of pheasants, quail, mallard, black and wood
ducks. Massachusetts also purchased some pheasants
from. commercial dealers. In 1919 this state liberated
1,481 young and 158 adult pheasants, 156 bob-whites,
2,218 young and 347 adult mallards, 106 wood ducks
and 65 black ducks.

The average price of the limited number of pheasants
offered for sale by commercial dealers ranges from $3 to
$5 per bird. Up to this time Massachusetts had been
unable to produce birds on her state game farms at these
prices. However, in 1920 they changed their system
and are now using incubators with a result that last year
they distributed 3,452 eggs, 3,793 young pheasants and
108 adult birds.

In 1920, 1,225 pheasant cocks and 752 pheasant hens
were reported killed. The game commission, however,
does not feel that this is accurate and thinks that, owing
in many instances to a wilful holding back of information,
not more than 20 per cent. of the birds killed in the
state yearly have been reported. Their report shows
that in 1919, 883 deer were killed, of which 359 were
does.

The breeding of ducks in Massachusetts has been practi-
cally abandoned, as they belive it is financially prohibitive
to produce a mallard sufficiently wild to serve for stock-
ing purposes. It has also been decided that the breeding
of other species of waterfowl is unnecessary, as they are
multiplying rapidly under Federal protection.

Massachusetts lays great emphasis on the necessity of
caring for the game in winter. It is believed that the an- .
nual production at the bird farms and fish hatcheries is
not in proportion to the increased number of sportsmen
and fishermen who go a-field and that very little or no
margin is left for the inroads on the stock due to un-

29

favorable breeding seasons, forest fires, cutting of covers,
severe winters and ravages of vermin.

. The law enforcement department is divided into twenty-
eight districts, each in charge of a deputy. In 1920 the
records show that they tried 288 cases for violation. In
addition to this, 68 cases were reported and filed.

Massachusetts issued 96,369 hunting or combination
licenses at a gross return of $100,590.25. For fishing in
inland waters 42,959 licenses were issued with returns
of $23,635.50. For lobster fishing 914 licenses were is-
sued, which netted the sum of $24,549.50. This gives
a combined total of 140,242 licenses issued by the Massa-
chusetts department of fish and game with a net return
of $125,139.75 in fees.

Very little of value is to be gained from the New Jersey
report. They operated one game farm, but their report
does not tell the number of birds or eggs produced, the
cost of operation or the amount of game killed. Mr.
Duncan Dunn, superintendent of the New Jersey State
Game Farm, reported that he had a very succesful season
last year at Forked River. Six thousand pheasants, 100
quail and 75 wild turkeys were raised to maturity.

New Jersey has a force of twenty-nine fish and game
wardens. The amount received by the state treasurer
during the year 1920 from th sale of hunters and anglers
licenses was $147,925.72. The aggregate of fines col-
lected from violators of the fish and game laws amounted
to $15,926.15. During the short open season for killing
deer in the state, 522 bucks were killed. It is estimated
that the value of these deer was approximately $50,000.

One good point in the Jersey law allows the establish-
ment of branch game farms under the supervision of the
State Game Farm. A sum not to exceed $2,500 for each
such farm is authorized for this purpose. The law pro-
vides that 75 per cent. of the game birds or animals
raised shall be liberated in the county in which the auxili-
ary farm is located. The report shows that Burlington
County has taken advantage of this provision in the law,
and it is estimated that in 1920 they released birds valued
at $2,748 and had a breeding stock on hand valued at
$576. Since this report was printed I am of the opinion
that another county has established its own branch game
farm.

I believe the prosecution of trivial cases is nearly always
a mistake. Ican say always a mistake in the case of the
first offense. Nothing is to be gained by a record of
successful prosecutions built upon so-called technical
cases.

30

I do not believe in permitting game wardens to unduly
exercise their police authority. An over officious game
protector will do much harm in a community, and a vio-
lation of the game laws does not call for the drastic
action necessary in the violation of other criminal codes.
When in the Federal service I always instructed a new
deputy to treat men under arrest in a gentlemanly man-
ner just as long as possible. There are, of course, oc-
casions when this cannot be done.

I know that no game protector should go in the field
without being armed, but I do not believe a side arm
should be in evidence, and under no consideration should
an officer enforcing game laws use a revolver except in
self-defense.

As a commissioner having charge of the entire work
in a state, I do not think it policy to trust too much to
your subordinates. Hold the heads of the departments
responsible for the faithful performance of their duties,
but see to it that correspondence intended for the com-
missioner is taken care of by a secretary who will see to
it that all complaints are brought to your attention and
properly investigated. Whole-hearted cooperation should
be given between state and Federal game departments.
Each can help the other, and there is no room for jealousy
in the work.

Below is a letter received from John M. Phillips, game
commissioner of Pennsylvania, which gives figures of in-
terest to every man whether he be a sportsman or not:

“Enclosed please find a statement covering the kill of
game and the amount of furs taken in Pennsylvania in the
season of 1920 as compiled by the Pennsylvania Game
Commission. I have gone over this statement and it is
correct, based upon reports returned by 8 per cent. of the
licensed hunters. If anything, I think it is below the
actual kill, as many returns were made from gentle-
men who did not hunt at all and from others who killed
a bear or a deer and were proud of their trophies—the
latter would naturally pay little attention to small game.
I am positive that the return on rabbits is below the actual
kill, as we did not take into account those trapped by
boys under 14 on the farms on which they reside. —

_ “You will note that $449,490 was received in Pennsyl-
vania last year from the sale of hunting licenses. The
total kill of game, conservatively estimated, was worth
$5,514,164, figured as a meat value of 40 cents a pound.

31

The value placed upon the furs taken during the same
period was $3,000,000. This gives us a total of $8,514,164,
which is 6 per cent. of $141,902,733. This is the value
of our breeding stock of game to the commonwealth and
we still have a substantial reserve in the old Bank of Na-
ture.

“Although we do not raise English pheasants on game
farms you will note that we have been successful to a
certain extent, as in the season of 1920 we killed 42,000
of these birds. We also killed over half a million grouse,
which we think too many, and had our bag and daily lim-
its reduced in accordance with our revised game laws.

“We still have faith in our game sanctuaries, and this
year we will have 32 of these miniature Yellowstone
Parks scattered throughout the state in operation.”

The Board of Game Commissioners of Pennsylvania
have prepared the following table showing the amount
of game animals and birds killed in that state. Only 8
per cent. of the gunners in Pennslyvania returned a report
to the commission, showing the amount of game they
killed last season. Taking the reports received from the
8 per cent., together with the number of licenses issued,
the figures for the total amount of game killed were ob-
tained.

Birds and animals, estimated kill, deer, legal bucks
3,300; bear, black 420; wild turkeys, 3,000; rabbits,
4,932,000; snowshoe rabbits, 70,200; squirrels, 1,250,000;
raccoons, 82,200; ruffed grouse, 507,600; ring-necked
pheasants, 42,000; quail, 79,800; wild geese, 2,640; wild
ducks, 81,000; blackbirds, 309,600; reedbirds, 65,520;
yellow-legs, snipe, rail, plover and woodcock,18,000.

This shows 17,427,280 pieces of game killed, or
18,785,410 pounds of choice meat, using a conservative
weight for each piece of game. Figuring this meat at
40 cents a pound gives $5,514,164 as the cash dividend
returned last year from Pennslyvania’s game.

Mr. Donald McVicar, perhaps the leading authority in
the country on the raising of game birds, reports the result
of his experiments in the hand rearing of ruffed grouse
“Partridges” at Norfolk, Connecticut:

I enclose my report of experiments carried out at Toby
on the Childs and Walcott preserve and under my direct
supervision. I have gone into detail pretty carefully and
I am now quite convinced from the valuable data obtained
in these tests that the problem of the ruffed grouse pro-

32

pagation by hand is, if not absolutely solved—on the
direct road to be solved. The further development
though must be in the hands of thoroughly experienced
men who have had a wide and long experience in rearing
game birds. _

Experiment No. 1 carried out in 1916. Seven eggs
hatched by a game bantam, Free Range Method.
They were placed in a coop and small runway in the wood
near entrance gate to Deer Park. After a couple of
days in confinement I removed the runway. This gave
the chicks liberty to roam around in search of their natur-
al food. They kept very busy catching the aphids which
clung to the undergrowth in quantities. This seemed to
be their favorite natural food. I supplemented this with
fine game meal and the yolk of a hard boiled egg
sprinkled in front of the coop in which the foster-mother
was still confined. After a day or two of this treat-
ment, the chicks roamed off in search of food often get-
ting so far that I had to carry one or two back within
hearing of the foster mother’s call. This method induced
me to give the foster mother free range by letting her out
of the coop every morning to wander about at will. I had
to do a good deal of herding on account of the hilly nature
of the ground and the flighty temper of the foster mother.
The latter would often dart off up hill towards her coop
at a rapid pace, occasionally leaving a stray bird which
I had to locate by his call and carry to the coop. I
continued the free range method though it involved con-
tinual vigilance, and an amount of herding of brood dur-
ing showery weather.

The foster mother, a Game Bantam was not all an
ideal of perfection, being wild and excitable, yet the
brood was doing splendidly. When about a week old
I lost one of the chicks mysteriously. I suspected a hawk
or weasel. In a few days I lost another and this time
was forced to the conclusion that the chipmunk was the
culprit. While standing perfectly still and close to the
coop, observing the brood feeding, a chipmunk darted
out from a juniper bush close by, instantly the foster
mother sounded the alarm, I also shouted and the offender
scuttled back to cover after just having missed catching
a chicken which he viciously struck at. I then moved
the coop on to more open ground, at same time con-
tinuously using the free range.

I lost a third chicken and when about 3 weeks old I
removed the brood and foster mother close to the Bunga-
low where I considered they would be safer. At this

383

time (3 to 4 weeks old) they began to pick grass seeds
and wild ripe strawberries. I continued the egg and
meal supplementary food, and allowed the foster mother
and brood to roam around the house during the day. At
night they were lured with feed to their coop and closed
in. At 5 weeks old they began to tree roost at night. °
There was now 4 birds left of the seven. They were so
tame that I could handle them at any time. When about
full grown one flew into the kennel close by and was
caught by the setters and killed. Early in September
the three birds that still remained suddenly disappeared
without any apparent cause. This I expected as I have
noticed years ago that during that month the broods in
the wild break up and disseminate over a wide area in
ones and sometimes twos. About this time the young
males began to strut and demonstrate their belligerent
habits which would no doubt be resented by the old cock
of the harem whose superior fighting experience would
enable him to drive the youngsters off to look for new
and unoccupied quarters. The lack of food around the
native habitat too would be a ruling element as a cause
of the September distribution: A few days after the dis-
appearance of the three truants I found one, a female
dead close by wire fence which she had evidently struck
with force during a flight across an open stretch. The
lower mandible was broken and the breast and throat
lacerated and the wire close to where she lay held the
feathers and blood.

Twelve days after the disappearance of the grouse the
male bird returned to the bungalow alone and still as
tame as ever. I caught him and put him in a pen.

This experiment at Toby proved that the free range
method of rearing grouse could be successfully carried
out under certain circumstances.

The necessary conditions are as follows. <A fenced in
area within the bounds of which is found the variety of.
brush timber such as grey birch, and fern etc., similar to
that which is found in the natural haunts of the wild
stock, where the insect life previously referred to is
abundant the hand feeding would be much reduced, at
the same time the broods would thrive all the better on
their insect ration.

The objection to this method is the necessity for an at-
tendant to be always on the spot to herd the broods into
their coops when a storm is approaching. Generally the
foster mother will do this if she is the right sort. Occa-
sionally however, one may lag till the last moment and

34

get caught in the storm, to the detriment of the whole
brood. If this brood had been in a vermin proof area
and penned up before the September migration, I believe
I would have successfully reared the entire lot of seven.
While I can recommend this system as an excellent one.
our second experiment worked out on a larger scale in
1917 prompts me to recommend the second method as
the best of the two.

Three clutches were put down under bantams. Thirty
eight young grouse were hatched out and placed in coops,
50 yards apart on a hill side not far from the bungalow
in which I lived. The coops were placed among birches,
ferns, wild grasses, and odd huckleberry bushes. In
fact ideal ruffed grouse natural habitat. The weather
was bad for sometime at first, in consequence of which
there was a considerable decrease in the quantities of the
flies. Therefore I had to depend on the meal and egg
mixture as a staple food, varied with the addition of ant’s
eggs, and cottage cheese. The broods were liberated
when a couple of days old from the coop runways, but the
hens or foster mothers were kept in coops.

The lot did fine till about three weeks old notwithstand-
fe the fact that the weather was very bad most of the

ime.

I was laid up for several days and had to send a young
man to do the feeding. On my return to duty I found a
lot of the chicks suffering from bowel trouble from which
many died. This I attributed to over feeding. I found
traces of food where coops had stood. This of course
was stale and no doubt in my mind the cause of the trouble
which I had great difficulty in checking. When a few
days old the broods rambled a long way from the coops.
They kept me busy herding them back to their several
coops. Generally they would find their own way back.
Odd birds though would go too far down hill. These I
carried back. Many times I would miss several at feeding
time, but after a wide search would come on them busy
chasing the insects. For this system of rearing I recom-
mend level ground. Hill sides are apt to entice the young
chicks to roam too far from the coops.

The ultimate result of the second experiment was ex-
tremely disappointnig to me inasmuch as the aggregate
raised was only 8 birds. Yet I consider the results as
due to accidents which are under normal conditions
avoidable.

A special pen about 34 of an acre covered over with
wire netting was constructed on natural ground, and into

this eight birds were placed.
35

This is considered the most important experiment of the
three and certainly the one above all others to be adopted
in the propagation of grouse by hand rearing.

In the lot of eight, there were three males and five fe-
males, one of the females got killed in the pen by striking
the wire when in rapid flight, and another female got
through a hole in the roof of pen and escaped and was
most likely taken by a hawk as she disappeared myster-
iously.

The stock was now reduced to three males and three
females. One male began strutting in September and
dominated the other two so savagely that they were
constantly driven to remote parts of the pen by the bellig-
erent chief. When feeding in the mornings the two per-
secuted males would approach the other group to be in-
stantly chased off by the top bird and in consequence had
to be fed separately. All were perfectly tame, would
feed out of my hand and scramble at times on to my arms.
The king of the harem was very fond of a scrap and when
walking through the pen he would suddenly appear and
attack my boot and then when I stooped to guard him
off he would strike out viciously at my fist. Towards
spring time this bird of strife killed the other males.
The three hens each nested and laid 31 eggs out of which
they hatched 27 chicks. Thus once and for all proving
that the ruffed grouse is absolutely polygamous and also
that when provided with properly constructed pens on
ground chosen as nearly as possible to represent the fea-
tures of their natural haunts they will nest and hatch out
their broods.

From the results of this experiment, I am now con-
vinced that ruffed grouse can be as successfully reared by
hand as any other game. My connection with the test
ended before the birds nested, and consequently I was
unable to devote any time to the special study of diet
which I had intended doing.

As far as I have gone I believe I have already solved
the problem of suitable food, at the same time I have a
special article of diet already tested out with many va-
rieties of game birds and foreign stock which I would
next try out if an opportunity arises. If a success with
grouse its use would simplify the dietary problem, which
now is the only part of the scheme that requires further
study. Ido not consider the feeding in the slightest de-

ree an obstacle to success. Allowing sufficient range for
the broods to pick up their natural food, supplementing

36

this with some of the prepared game foods will insure
success at the hands of an intelligent attendant who has
the faculty of close observation and enthusiasm in his
makeup. In time, the correct supplementary food will be
discovered, so that as a perfect substitute it can be used
in times when weather conditions may cause a scarcity
of the natural food of the young grouse.

Young stock intended for breeding in pens should be
pinioned about twenty-four hours after hatching.

This operation incurs no risk when performed by ex-
perienced hands. It eliminates any danger of birds be-
ing hurt during flight. Full winged grouse take sudden
flights in pen in play, and at great speed, where-by they
are often injured by striking the wire.

Fish |

The Honorable Hugh M. Smith, Commissioner of Fish-
eries, Department of Commerce, writes as follows:
“My dear Mr. Walcott:

Your letter was duly received and has been having my
careful attention. I hope it may be possible for you to
come to Washington in order to talk over Connecticut
fishery matters. Meanwhile, I am glad to give you my
views on several of the points raised in your letter.

In my opinion it would be a mistaken policy and a waste
of money, time, and effort to attempt to establish in Con-
necticut waters the chinook or other Pacific salmons. The
Connecticut River is no longer suitable for any migratory
fish because of the large amount of tradewaste discharged
into it and because of barriers below the sections to which
such fish would have to go for spawning purposes. For
a number of years various eastern states have developed
a kind of mania for Pacific salmons for both the interior
and costal waters, when there was not the slightest rea-
son to expect that such fishes could be established. Par-
ticularly objectionable has been the planting of chinook
salmon in inland lakes where the salmon have quickly
cleaned out the native trout and other fishes and have
then promptly disappeared from the scene, because, as it

37

is well known, it is impossible for a strictly migratory fish
of this kind, which must pass a large part of its life in the
sea, to become acclimatized in small landlocked waters.

In my opinion similar attempts to acclimatize in small
lakes and ponds of Connecticut the landlocked salmon of
Maine must prove unsuccessful. This species requires
large lakes well stocked with its natural food, the smelt,
and it can never become an important resource in Con-
necticut.

After a very careful review of the situation as it now
exists in Connecticut, it is believed that the most profit-
able kind of interior fish culture for the state to undertake
will be addressed to the brook or speckled trout, the
rainbow trout, and the smallmouth black bass.

A small hatchery located on the Connecticut coast
could handle such important marine species as winter
flounder, tautog, sea bass, and the lobster. The flatfish
is especially valuable as a commercial food fish of grow-
ing importance. It can be readily propagated and the
plants from the hatchery will benefit the waters in which
deposited, because this species has no marked wandering
instinct. As you know, the winter flounder has a large
mouth and is extensively caught by anglers.

Dr. Charles H. Townsend of the New York Aquarium
can give you valuable advice as can also Dr. G. C. Embody
of Cornell University. I take the liberty of calling to
your especial attention Mr. John W. Titcomb, now of 379
Quail Street, Albany, New York, who has had a very wide
experience in practical fish culture and is now a consult-
ing fish culturist. He was for a number of years in charge
of this fish-cultural branch of the United States Bureau
of Fisheries and until recently held the position of State
Fish Culturist of New York. It is believed that Mr. Tit-
comb can give you very great assistance in placing your
fish-cultural service on a rational basis.”

Dr. Charles H. Townsend, Director of the New York
Aquarium, reports as follows:

Fish culture is on a fairly good basis now. It is quite
possible to hatch and rear fishes in large numbers, but
laws don’t protect very thoroughly, pollution of waters is
widespread and anglers are abroad in legions.

Stocking fresh waters is not difficult but getting satis- -
factory results is quite another matter, some lakes and
streams have conditions that are naturally favorable,
while others lack the natural food supplies that are neces-

38

sary for the growth and abundance of food fishes. Plant-
ing of fry has been done in most states promiscuously and
unintelligently, the condition not being considered at all.
Fishes cannot increase in waters of limited area, beyond
their food supplying capacity. It is questionable whether
waters in thickly populated states can, with all the sci-
ence available, be made to yield satisfactory results. The
public can take out fishes faster than they can be matured.
It is easy to put them in.

There are protected reservoirs all over the country,
where state commissions get young stock in abundance
for distribution, but the public could soon clean them
out if allowed to do so.

Good angling is desirable and wholesome for the
people.

We should know more about the character of waters to
be stocked and it need not take long to make the investi-
gations.

The possibilities of small fish pond as sources of food
for the people have received little consideration in this
country and the actual breeding and maturing of fishes
in such ponds is an art which we have yet to put in prac-
tice.

While certain foreign countries have long profited by
the art of private fish culture, and have furnished notable
examples, our own facilities for this industry have been
neglected. It is probable that our resources in this re-
spect are greater than those of other countries, as the
United States already lays claim to the most extensive
fish cultural operations carried on in the world, and no-
where is there so large a body of professional fish cultur-
ists as that connected with our national and state fishery
commissions.

In these times when the value of running streams for
water power is being widely considered, the possessors
of brooks, springs and small lakes should be awakened to
the value of their home resources for water farming.

It is gratifying to note that trout culture, in the hands
of the private citizen, is making some progress in Mas-
sachusetts and adjacent states, and the advertisements of
successful trout raisers may to-day be found in American
journals devoted to fish and game. Trout culture, is,
however, a branch of the work which requires special
conditions, such as purity of water, comparatively low
temperature, the construction of buildings and artificial
fertilization. The possibilities for the private or com-
mercial culture of many other kinds of fishes, which are

39

more widely distributed than the trouts and can be culti-
vated by simpler methods, should receive serious con-
sideration.

In some of the countries of central Europe the cultiva-
tion of fishes in private waters has been going on for cen-
turies. In Austria and Germany fish farming, as it is of-
ten called, is a common industry. While it is much prac-
ticed by small land owners, there are many large estates
which maintain hundreds of ponds in active cultivation.
Much of this private fish culture is based on the various
forms of the carp, but other European fishes are also
cultivated for sale, such as the tench, ide, ruff, bream,
perch and pike. Some European fish culturists are now
raising American basses and perches. There are many
villages in Austria where fish ponds are maintained at
the expense of the community. In view of these facts, it
is remarkable that immigrants from Europe have neglect-
ed to practice their ancient art of pond culture in this
country. ae

Aside from the commercial trout raising, which is prac-
ticed to a limted extent, we have nothng of such pond cul-
ture in America. Our numerous fish hatcheries maintained
under the- direction of state commissions are devoted al-
most entirely to the stocking of public waters with young
fishes. Very little of the product is reared to maturity
and none is sent to market direct. If our fish culturists
should be commanded to bring their annual yield of fry
to maturity and deliver it to the market, they would be at
a loss how to proceed. We are really not fish raisers, but
producers of fry. At that stage our efforts cease. The
rest is left to nature, and negligently cast into waters
that we imperfectly protect and utterly neglect to keep
pure. While our achievements in public fish hatching are
notable, private fish culture has made no headway. A
few of our state commissioners are making efforts in pond
culture for the benefit of farming communities, notably
in Kansas, and it will be interesting to observe what prog-
ress can be made. Perhaps the vast natural yeld from
our coast, lake and river fisheries is responsible for the
lack of private effort. ;

Our fish supply, in general, is large and well distri-
buted, but we could consume a much greater supply, es-
pecially i in view of the fact that in some sections the nat-
ural supply is being depleted by over fishing and pollution
of waters. There are many sections of the country inade-
quately supplied with fish food which could be produced

40

locally by pond cultivation and such supplies would find
convenient home markets.

It is possible for the private citizen to obtain pond fishes
for breeding purposes, but he needs assistance and direc-
tion. Object lessons on approved methods of fish culture
could be obtained by visiting public hatcheries, but this
is not likely to be undertaken. It would be advantageous
to the country if state fish commissions generally could
supply the coarser fishes for cultivation in private waters
and furnish the public free information as to the methods
to be followed.

State fish commissions should not only prepare inexpen-
sive pamphlets on the cultivation of common fishes, but
see that they reach many communities and be announced
and reviewed by the rural press everywhere. Model
ponds distributed about the state for demonstrative work
would, of course, be educational, like agricultural col-
leges and state experiment farms. I am not prepared to
set forth the best means of doing this work, perhaps no
two states would undertake it the same way.

I am convinced that some of the energy put into the
production of fry is misdirected. The output is amazing;
six billions last year by the National Bureau and perhaps
as much more by the states. Practically all of it is hur-.
ried into the nearest river and none of it raised. We are
all going about the same thing and have settled into the
rut of fish hatching in hatchery buildings. No one is doing
anything new except as connected with the competition
for increased output.

Having practiced these wholesale methods for two or
three decades, let us now consider whether we might not
profit by a little less fish hatching and a little more fish
raising. Does salvation lie only in a multiplicity of ex-
pensive federal and state hatcheries? If our fishery es-
tablishments were equipped to raise and market one per
cent of the fry. now being hatched and liberated, might
not the quanity of food thus produced exceed that which
eventually reaches market by the way of public waters?
Let us simplify our art and teach it to the people, for they
can surely help in the production of fish food.

On Stream Pollution.

We have not only disregarded our fresh waters in most
of these respects, but we have carelessly permitted them
to become polluted. The pollution of public waters is
our most common act and our most uncivilized practice.

41

The casting of refuse in a stream results only in trans-
ferring it from one neighborhood to another.

The great evil with which practical fish culture in
America has to contend at the present time is the contam-
ination of public waters by sewage and the refuse of man-
ufacturies. Although the propagation of fishes by artific-
al means has, in this country, reached a degree of efficien-
cy unequalled in other countries, the preservation of
streams in conditions desirable for maintenance of fish
life has been singularly neglected.

In a majority of those States which possess fishery re-
sources there exists more or less effective restrictions upon
fishing and the operation of fishery industries, but it is
seldom that enactments against the depositing of waste
matter in the waters are enforced.

All of our fish commissioners of experience, both na-
tional and state, are agreed that the decrease in the sup-
ply of food fishes is traceable more to pollution of waters
than to any other cause, and stream, pollution is going on
at a rate porportionate to the increase in population and
the development of manufacturing industries. The ef-
fects of pollution are most serious in the more densely
populated states. It begins almost at the source of streams
and extends to the very mouths of the largest rivers.

The effects of pollution of the harbor of New York are
liable to become very serious, as the amount of sewage is
increasing. There are bottom deposits of sewage in many
parts of the harbor that are several feet in thickness.
Many forms of marine life which assist in the disposal of
organic matter in the harbor must decrease in numbers,
and disappear as the volume of sewage increases, while
the shad, oyster, and other fisheries are already suffering
from its effects.

The Blackstone is the most polluted river in New Eng-
land; its name has become synonymous with filth. The
headwaters of a river system are usually free from pollu-
tion but in this case the opposite is true. The sewage
from the city of Worcester befouls the river at its source,
and thereafter through its whole extent the Blackstone
is a damaged resource to the country. Such is the ac-
cumulation of filth in the mill ponds that from some of
those near Worcester there arise odors that are detri-
mental to comfort and realty, if not health. The use of
its water in boilers has long been abandoned and it cannot
be used in the manufacture of light colored clothes.

There is no legal justification for the pollution of water,
yet so universal is the practice that it has come to receive

42

moral justification at the hands of society, and meets no
general condemnation except where it goes beyond the
bounds of human endurance. A few states in the Union
have recognized the damage arising from water pollution
and have made intelligent investigations for the purpose
of correcting the evils.

It is claimed that more than 130,000 persons visit the
State of Maine every year on vacation, to fish or hunt.
These summer visitors bring into Maine from six to twelve
millions of dollars a year, or more than thirty per cent of
the total value of all farm crops raised in Maine.

Many of the northern states, notably Michigan, are
visited in summer by legions of tourists, largely on ac-
count of the good angling to be had in their waters, and
the lakes of all America have become summer resorts for
an important proportion of the people.

The Honorable R. B. Stoeckel of Norfolk, an ardent
fisherman, who has given much study to the protection
and propagation of fish: who knows intimately the fish
situation in Connecticut, makes the followng interesting
observations and recommendations:

For The River Systems of The Connecticut River.
Native Trout.

A hatchery to be centrally located, probably some-
where in the Farmington Valley to supply all the head
waters whch are yet suitable for native trout.

Each system of head water streams to have its best
tributary spring brook segregated as a breeding brook,
to be under State control during its whole length; all
stocking to be done for the system in that brook and the
fish when large enough will stock the main system. No
fishing to be allowed on the breeding brook and as a mat-
ter of protection it must be chocked with brush and rub-
bish so that fishing is impossible.

A concrete illustration for your own purposes is sup-
plied by an example of the system in Norfolk. If the Rob-
bins Brook, which is a spring brook and which breeds
about all the trout for the Black Berry system should be
chocked with brush its whole length, stocked and pro-
tected all the streams in the Black Berry system would
furnish good fishing for large trout in the Course of three

years.
43

Trout Other Than Natives.

I do not believe in any kind of foreign trout such as
brown or rainbow. They are failures in our streams and
there is no reason why the native trout can not be brought
back by stocking.

Stocking.

Stocking must be done aggressively by the State and
fish placed in localities selected by the State under the
direction of the Commission.

Farmington and Housatonic Rivers.

In the lower reaches of the Farmington and through
the whole length of the Housatonic river intensive breed-
ing of bass and perch would bring rapid results. There
is at present a bass hatchery at Lake Waramaug.

It is possible for the State to maintain a number of
hatcheries for what one or two have been costing .There
is no reason why the principal of rotation can not be car-
ried through one hatchery so as to keep it running all the
time providing there are enough breeding ponds. Some
of our best fish spawn in the spring, while trout spawn
in October and November etc. The same crew at the
same hatchery might be working all the time.

The Connecticut River.

Shad fishing could be brought back in the Connecticut
river by an adequate hatchery at or near Windsor and by
protection both by new laws and by enforcement during
the first five years. After that there would be so many
shad that you could continue to waste them for twenty
years.

The Connecticut river throughout its length, in Con-
necticut is suitable for pickerel, pike and bass. It is no
longer a possible salmon river except by going to a great
expense for fish-ways.

For the River Systems East of the Connecticut River.

The territory east of the Connecticut river is similar to
that on the west and the problem is the same.

A hatchery to be placed in a suitable portion of either
Windham or Tolland Counties for a similar distribution
of fish. Trout at the head waters, perch and bass at the
flat portions of the big streams.

In a general way this covers stocking of the interior
running waters.

44

Lakes.

Each lake should be specially studied. The old
fashioned fishing must be brought back in all the mud
bottom ponds, sloughs and creeks. That is, they must be
heavily stocked with pickerel and perch.

To return to a local example. Any. of the ponds in
Norfolk could be brought back to the conditions of twen-
ty years ago by such methods and absolute protection for
two years (viz Goshen pond, where it is now possible to
catch a hundred pickerel any time.) There are certain
of the larger and clearer ponds with which experiments
might be made. For instance Twin Lakes typical of sev-
eral ponds in the State, raises many great lake white fish.
The pond is literally alive with them but as they are a
deep water fish and because it is agamst the law to use a
gill net only a few are caught and those illegally.

After the experience of the past two years and after
a study of the situation I do not believe in the Chinook
salmon unless he is to be raised and fished for with nets
He is too hard to catch in the lakes to be a good sporting
fish or much of a factor as a food supply. I can give
data and details regarding Chinook fishing in Massachu-
setts, New York and Connecticut which will demonstrate
this point.

Therefore it is a fair conclusion that most of the lakes
ought to be stocked with the indigenous fishes and that
those ought to be increased by propagation and stocking
to a point where any farmer’s boy can get a mess in season.

There are fifty miles of stream in each, the Housatonic
and Farmington which raise only a few insignificent fish
and which might be made to raise tons of food by inten-
sive work. All this means money. Money can be raised
only by educating the public to the necessity of a fish
license. A fish license at from $3 to $5 would raise ample
money to support all necessary hatcheries.

Pollution.

The whole subject of pollution of streams is, to my mind,
for the present immaterial except so far as it relates to the
shell fish proposition.

The Naugatuck river, from Torrington down is the only
river in the State of which I personally know which is so
polluted that it will not raise fish. The other rivers are
not bad and the lakes throughout are comparatively
clean and healthful.

What the State now possesses in the line of hatcheries
and their output is absolutely inadequate; good enough

45

as far as they go; but not ample enough; new work along
these lines is needed. It will be entirely possible if you
desire to have it done, to get together groups of men who
would personally finance the hatching of fish for sale to.
the State or who would finance the building of a hatchery
as a private corporation. All these things can be worked
out. What is needed is someone with personality, ex-
perience and energy to get into it and father the project.

A Report By John W. Titcomb, An Expert Consulting
Fish Culturist, on “Black Bass Culture, as
Applied to the State of Connecticut.”

Nearly all species of fishes distributed by the Board of
Fisheries and Game are susceptible of propagation by arti-
ficial methods and can be produced in numbers limited
only by the funds available for fish cultural operations.
Both the largemouth and smallmouth black basses and
allied species constitute a partial exception, however,
since their eggs cannot be artificially manipulated. For
supplies of such fishes, it is customary in most states
where there is a demand for them, to depend upon the
natural reproduction of brood fishes held in ponds pre-
pared for the purpose.

A series of such ponds usually range in area from one-
fourth, to one acre, the shape and size of each being dic-
tated by economy in construction. They are so arranged
that it is possible to have an independent water supply
and drainage. Thus the removal of the fish is facilitated
and an abundance and variety of aquatic vegetation
which supports the minute animal life upon which the
little basses subsist, as well as performing other important
functions, is regulated.

The cultivation of these fishes, therefore, usually con-
sists in providing a series of artificial ponds which shall
give to the maximum number of breeding fish and their
young all the essential conditions of a natural environ-
ment, while at the same time protecting them as far as
possible from their enemies.

The expense involved in the establishment of a well
equipped pond culture station varies all the way from
$50,000.00 to $100,000.00.

At most places where pond cultural operations are con-
ducted, it is customary to depend upon some adjacent

46

public fishing water, as a source of supply for brood fish,
the bass being caught as they are enroute to their natural
spawning grounds.

Unless there are unusually favorable facilities for keep-
ing the parent fish in brood ponds, it is customary to re-
lease them, after the spawning function, in the larger
waters of their origin. ;

In other words, several hundred brood bass are removed
from a large body of water in order to get their progeny
under control. The progeny is then distributed in small
allotments to many waters.

During the early stages of their existence, young bass
in breeding ponds are exposed to dangers of many kinds,
just as they are in the larger waters of their natural
habitat, although not in the same magnitude. Snakes,
frogs, turtles, various water insects, fish-eating birds and
mammals, all are destructive to the fry, while the young
of the same school prey upon the weaker ones. The
natural spawning period extends over six or eight weeks
and the earlier broods of fry prey upon their younger
brethren. The losses from cannibalism among the little
basses are undoubtedly greater in the confines of artifi-
cial breeding ponds than among the little basses hatched
in the larger waters.

The degree of success attained both in natural waters
and in artificial ponds varies with the season and is
governed largely by the state of the weather and other
natural conditions beyond the control of the Commission.
Located, as they are, along the shoal margins of the
ponds, the nests receive the full effect of atmospheric
changes. A sudden fall in temperature will often cause
the parents to desert their nests, and as the eggs and fry
are extremely sensitive, they are frequently killed or
their development injuriously retarded by the cold.

Another unfavorable feature resulting from the location
of the nests in shallow water is that it subjects them to
the full force of surface drainage and washings, follow-
ing heavy rains. Roily water is extremely injurious to
the ova and young of the black bass, and heavy rains and
sudden temperature changes are conditions which must be
expected during the season of the year when these fishes
spawn. In the breeding ponds efforts are made to regu-
late these conditions, but the results of pond cultural
operations are hazardous and uncertain in the extreme.
One year a station may have a good output, and the next
year, under apparently similiar conditions, very few
young fish are produced.

47

The following resolution was adopted by the American
Fisheries Society at its Fifty-first Annual Meeting at
Allentown, Pennsylvania, September, 1921.

Whereas, It is well recognized by fish-culturists that the artificial
propagation of both large and small mouth bass is impractical upon
the large scale practiced in the propagation of other food and game
fishes, and that it is well recognized that increase of these species
by reproduction under natural conditions is ordinarily more than
sufficient to maintain nature’s balance in waters inhabited by
these species, and that the removal of parent fish from their nests
results in the loss of from 500 to 25,000 helpless fry,

Resolved, that under the intensive angling of the present day,
supplemented by the many new and alluring devices cast at the
quarry, the conservation of these two important game fishes is neces-
sarily dependent upon the proper protection of the parent fish during
the entire period that they are spawning and caring for their young,
supplemented by due precaution to maintain in all bass waters an
abundance of bass food.

For the foregoing reasons the U. S. Bureau of Fisheries
as well as State Fisheries Commissions engaged in the
propagation of the basses frankly state that “only suffi-
cient numbers of bass for a brood stock will be furnished,”
or words to that effect.

A brood stock usually means from one to three cans of
little bass from one-half inch to three inches in length,
the number to a can varying from 250 to 1,000, it being
impossible to carry more than one-fourth as many of the
larger fingerlings as of the one-half inch fry. The appli-
cant who has been accustomed to receive pike perch or
yellow perch in million lots, or some species of trout in
lots of several thousands, is naturally disappointed.

The introduction of this small amount of fish to waters
of such large range as the basses require, will show results
in waters not already inhabited by bass, and it is the pro-
‘per method of stocking new waters. Their introduction
into waters already inhabited by the same species is a
mere bagatelle as compared with what nature will ac-
complish if the bass already there are permitted to spawn
unmolested and protect their nests until the fry have left
them.

It is well known to anglers that the male bass, both
largemouth and smallmouth, protect the nest while the
eggs are incubating and for a short period after the fry
have hatched, after which time the young scatter to forage
for themselves. While protecting its nest, the bass re-
sents any intrusion and will seize almost anything dropped
upon the nest. He will take even an unbaited hook
dragged over it. The capture of these guardians of the
eggs and very young fry is easy and requires no skill.

48

But it is a conservative statement to say that for every
adult bass removed from the nest, there is a correspond-
ing destruction of from 500 to 25,000 eggs or fry; the
amount from each nest exceeding the average number
of little bass supplied by fishery officials on each appli-
cation for stocking purposes.

In normal seasons the basses have finished spawning in
most Connecticut waters on or before July first. During
a very late spring the spawning season in cold water
lakes may extend well past the middle of July.

If the nesting bass are protected until the first of July,
(as provided by the statutory close season) it is believed

‘that in waters suitable for them they will be able to main-
tain themselves by natural reproduction to the limit of the
natural food supply.

However, there may be occasions when the angler will
have an opportunity, in open season, to exercise self-
restraint—by refraining from taking father bass while
he is attempting to guard his nest or young brood.

Both of the basses (largemouth and smallmouth) are
non-indigenous fishes which were first introduced to Con-
necticut waters about fifty years ago. They are naturally
warm-water fishes, the largemouth especially so, but have
in some instances been introduced into cold-water lakes
and ponds better suited to some species of trout. In
these colder waters the basses cannot be made to yield
so large a crop as in the warmer waters. One of the
several reasons for this is the fact that the colder waters
produce less bass food than do the warmer waters.

Fortunately, there are two opportunities to improve the
bass fishing without resorting to large annual expendi-
tures.

The first is by legislation for the protection of immature
fish. The present statutory limit as to the size of bass
which may be lawfully taken, coupled with an ever-in-
creasing number of anglers, with new and ever increas-
ingly destructive lures, results in keeping the number of
mature fish reduced to a minimum. It is seldom that a
bass is sufficietly mature to spawn when only eight inches
long and when a female of such small size is mature she
will produce comparatively few eggs. With the growth of
another year her productive capacity would at least be
trebled. It must be kept in mind that the fish crop is
one to be harvested under certain wise restrictions, just
as one harvests poultry or other live stock—always with
an eye to protecting a sufficient breeding stock to main-
tain the supply.

49

From the foregoing it will be seen that if the statutory
limit on the size of bass which may be lawfully killed is
increased, there will be a much greater increase in the
number of fry annually produced under natural condi-
tions.

It is probable that if the limit is placed at ten inches,
the resultant increase in the number of small fish will be
all that the natural food supply upon which the minute
fish must depend for sustenance will provide for.

In addition to this opportunity to improve the bass fish-
ing by legislation which will allow more fish to reach
maturity before they spawn, the Board of Fisheries and
Game has found a substitute for expensive pond culture
methods which promises to be more productive and in-
volves less expense in operation. It consists in the use
of reservoirs of municipal water works as a source of
supply, not only for basses but also for other desirable
warm water fishes, notably the yellow perch, pickerel
and bullheads. Already arrangements have been made
with certain city officials for the privilege of using nets
in reservoirs where angling is prohibited. The privilege
makes it possible to catch and distribute to public ponds
and lakes fishes of all sizes from yearlings up to large
adults. The extent to which this work can be carried on
is dependent upon the number of reservoirs upon which
fishing privileges are obtained and otherwise limited only
by the amount of funds available for defraying the ex-
pense. It is needless to say that work of this character
will be done under strict sanitary regulations, having the
approval of the State Department of Health.

From the foregoing discussion the following points
may be summarized:

The basses are not susceptible of propagation by arti-
ficial methods.

It is impossbile to furnish them to applicants in numbers
proportionate to the species artificially propagated.

The present close season to July first is adequate legis-
lative protection for the spawning bass. There may be
a few cold water lakes or ponds in which the bass do not
finish spawning until after July first. Adequate pro-
tection should be afforded them not only during the en-
tire period when they are on their nests but also by a
statutory limit as to size which may be lawfully killed of
not less than ten inches.

Bass fry and fingerlings in quantities ordinarily sup-
plied are adequate for stocking waters not already inhab-
ited by the same species.

50

The amount of young fish annually produced varies
with seasonal conditions, and a corresponding variation
in the fishing from season to season may be expected.

The annual stocking of bass-inhabited waters with the
comparatively small number of fry or fingerlings which it
is possible to produce by pond cultural operations amounts
to little. The Board of Fisheries and Game cannot con-
sistently ask the legislature to appropriate the large sum
involved in the establishment of a pond culture station.

As a substitute for an expensive pond culture station
the Board of Fisheries and Game has arranged with offi-
cials in charge of muncipal water works for the privilege
of removing bass and other warm water fishes with a view
to transferring them to public lakes and ponds.

51

a

oss