Art dat al oh “eit alee Hf nwa it } wlete aici i i tra Latshetanes ant sistete Mids wre sit Wire habs 4 sta Ui es oy , : 4 ae ie stebbie i. ee itis ia s Hd _ i Une tia a at {0 tht are ise Hd oes ald Pee tule ff adiea Rdg ue seen Hata Be ee — eae rs oH rise e) a ama etal Bt iyi ah ej fait betes pid a erste tees ati beers Gtbadsiatcaesat ake MET ruts poskedeeetss sat Hehehe pepet ¢ es . Siaksiods4sheiepraatey relents y es re euipe aarit) > ; he te geted: Over yrks ats Aloha s ‘theta Hitiith ates Oarded FEB 12 1944 gies of i, ¢ a ve : | Division of Fishes, eas ee | f » B.S. National Museu, A\MERICAN F isHErRIES SOCIETY. 1892. 325074 ee OTT we eponian vstitu Ago fF f IN 9 bs" 1920 ) SMe TRANSACTIONS OF THE BMRB LC BIN FISHERIES SOCIETY. TWENTY-FIRST ANNUAL MEETING. mip InTaE FLOLLAND HOUSE, wy. ony. MAY 25TH, 1892. NEW YORK: D. S. Watton & Co., PRINTERS, 132 FRANKLIN STREET. 1892. OFFICERS FOR 1892-93. * Parcipent, HERSCHEL WHITAKER. e222 sk Detroit, Mich. VicE-PRESIDENT, FRED. MATHER...Cold Spring Harbor, N. Y. Treasurer, DENRY CC; FORD... Fugees Philadelphia, Pa. RECORDING SECRETARY, EDWARD P. DOYLE...NMew York City. Cor. SECRETARY, TARLETON H. BEAN..... Washington, D. C. E-XECUTIVE COMMITTEE. AS SURE se use weal eae eek ae eac ae toe no aes La Grange, Ga. Ry obi OO WIMLAIN = 5. Srascia solve ea ieee meta reese Rochester, NV. Y. iS DRE UIBERS .%.2 ac brisign 0 folateahy| 2 eis a Meera ica cn eee bere Erie, Pa. RN MOE UD SON sano 6 at a pein neta Hartford. Conn, Nets BATR BAN ECSifs soc ab ccs sete tener Chicago, 111. Ca (OSBORN) .% . cuss sucess element tee eek ss. -Dayion, Oo Boe Mee OS BRU. 5, ok Poetom levee ela ei ee eee San Francisco, Cal. LOCAL COMMITTEE: Ryle a MAY os Oo oe eae ae ee Omaha, Neb. CALVERT SPENSLEY .. ot cekneeee ene Mineral Point, Wis. WM."A. BU TEER, JR: ...5 ce cues See Detroit, Mich. OES SONICS 5. e ‘ss: bride a cele eee ete ae eee Toledo, O. 5.22. BARTLET’? oy svc 0 au tte een te ee Quincy, Ll. WIN UES OF THE TWENTY-FIRST ANNUAL MEETING OFSTHE AMERICAN FISHERIES SOCIETY HELD IN THE Se ONE A EW § YOu ie WEDNESDAY, MAY 25TH, 1892, Pe PE. FHOLLAND: HOUSE. Pas Peri e.; THE FOLLOWING MEMBERS WERE PRESENT: F. J. Amsden, - - - Rochester, N. Y. L. D. Huntington, - - New Rochelle, N. Y. Dr. Tarleton H. Bean, - - Washington, D. C. James Benkard, - - - New York City. Prof. A. S. Bickmore, - - New York City. Henry Burden, - - - - Troy, N.Y, WY oa, motieler:. Ir; %.- - - Detroit, Mich. or. EL. Ty Carey, - - - Atlanta, Ga. Frank N. Clark, - . - Northville, Mich. William A, Conklin, - - - New York City Fred Mather, E. P. Doyle, - J. F. Ellis, - - N. K. Fairbank, - Henry C. Ford, - - Asa B. French, - John Gay, - - W. L. Gilbert, - G. Brown Goode, . J. E. Gunckel, - Charles F. Imbrie, - Dr. Bushrod W. James, W. L. May, : - Col. M. McDonald, - W. ¥. Pave, - - 0, 9c, Parkers, ye Hoyt Post, . - W. L. Powell, - R. Redmond, - - Chas. B. Reynolds, - Hon. Geo. M. Robeson, William P. Seal, - f,. Streaber, = Z Herschel Whitaker, - J. D. Quackenbos, - W.S. Webb, - = John H. Titcomb, - CC. Warren, = W. Hl. Rogess,, -- 2 Daniel Morrell, . Chas) ByOrvisy= = Ju F.) Merrill, Ph. D., Dr. E. Bradley, - J. W. B. Hughes, - J. W. Hoxie, : - W.H. Bowman, - Charles F. Chamberlayne. David G. Hackney, - Cold Spring Harbor, N. Y. New York City. Washington, D. C. - Chicago, Ill. - Bay City, Mich. South Braintree, Mass. Washington, D. C. Plymouth, Mass. Washington, D. C. -- ‘Toledo,-O: - New York City. Philadelphia, Pa. - Omaha, Neb. Washington, D. C. Washington, D. C. Grand Rapids, Mich. - Detroit, Mich. Harrisburg, Pa. - New York City. New York City. - Camden, (N. J. Washington, D. C. = - .sirie. Pa. Detroit, Mich. - New York City. New York City. - Rutland, Vt. Waterbury, Conn. - Amherst, N. S. Hartford, Conn. - Manchester, Vt. Albany, N. Y. - New York City. New York City. - sCanehna, Rochester, N. Y. Buzzard’s Bay, Mass. Hort. Plainy Nias 5 In the absence of Dr. James A. Henshall, President of the Society, Dr. James C. Parker, Vice-President, presided. Letters of regret at their inability to attend were read from J. C. Bottemantle of Holland; Dr. James A. Hen- enall, Washington, D.C.; Hon. E. D2 Potter, Toledo, O.; A. Nelson Cheney, Glens Falls, N. Y., and C. Zweighaft, Philadelphia, Pa. The secretary read a communication from the New York Society for the Protection of Fish and Game, requesting the presence of the members at a dinner to be given at the Holland House, Wednesday evening, May 25th, and on motion the invitation was accepted and the secretary directed to express to the President of the Society for the Protection of Fish and Game the thanks — of the American Fisheries Society. The secretary also read an invitation from Mr. Roland Redmond, President of the South Side Club, to visit the preserves of the Club on Long Island on Thursday, May: 26th, members to go by special train leaving Long Island City at 9.30 in the morning. On motion, the invitation was accepted, and the secre- tary was directed to write to the President of the South Side Club thanking him for his courtesy. Mr. Henry C. Ford of .Philadelphia, Pa., then pre- sented his annual report as Treasurer of the Association. The report is as follows: AMERICAN FISHERIES SOCIETY IN ACCOUNT WITH Henry C. Forp, Treasurer. 1891. CREDITS. Desits. CREDITS. May 26. By cash, balance on hand... $ 98.87 1892. May 245°,“ Members’dues, re- GEIVE ws /oesu. 324.00 $422.87 BEDE..2 1892. Jan. 209. a4 30. 6 DEBITS. . To cash paid time of om- nibus at Washington.... . Tocash Spangler & Davis, printing bills... nsec . To cash Mary Walling, type-writing report....... . To cash Photo-Engraving . . To cash 100 ‘stamped en- VElOPES..4 ciara To. cash dg: Dayle. new CINCUIATS! is mod eters . Tocash expressage on cir- culars to Philadelphia.. . To cash expressage on cir- culars to Egypt Hills. . To cash 100 stamped en- velopes . To cash Toba wi Davis, printing reports:.c0-at: . To cash E. P. Doyle, sun- dry €Xpenses..t:s.un cies Tocash stamped envelopes. To cash E. P. Doyle, send- ins Out CirCulatsue cae To, cash F, Richardson; sending out circulars.... May 24. Tocash balance on hand.. 7.00 4-75 7,00 1.00 .8O 124.20 B27 5 2.16 ~~ =A 17-73 _ $422.87 Philadelphia, May 24th, 1892. |i $ 422.87 BoC, Form On motion of Dr. Carey of Georgia, the report was referred to a Committee of Three, consisting of H. H. ii Carey of Georgia, Hoyt Post of Michigan, and F. J. Amsden of New York, for audit. The secretary then presented the report for the past year. The report was received and ordered filed. It is as follows: May 25th, 1892. To the President and Members of the American Fisherzes Soctety. Gentlemen : I have to report that during the year past 4 members of the society have died, 4 resigned, and 43 new mem- bers elected. The present membership is: Corresponding, - - - - Se Honorary, - - : : : 6 ALCHIVE: o> = - - - - 220 The committee appointed at the last meeting to endeavor to increase the membership of the society have done a great deal of work, but the results have been rather meagre. Circulars were sent to hundreds of sportsmen throughout the country, but only about thirty responded. The only way in which the membership can be materially increased is by the personal solicitation of our members. I would urge that each member feel himself specially charged with securing as many new members as possible, so that the society may make a good showing at Chicago in 1893. Many of the new members obtained this year were obtained through the efforts of Mr, Cheney, and much credit is due him for his work. The society is in a more prosperous condition than ever before, and there is no reason why its ultimate suc- cess as a powerful and influential organization should not be assured. Very respectfully, Epwarp P. DovyvLe, Secretary. Mr. W. L. May of Nebraska, moved that a Commit- 8 tee of Three be appointed to nominate” officers for the society for the ensuing year. Bs The motion was carried, and the president appokiied as such committee, W. ix May of Nebraska; H. H. Carey of Georgia, and William A. Butler, Jr., of Michi- gan. The reading of papers then began and continued until adjournment, which was taken until 2 o'clock of the same day. Minutes of adjourned meeting: Meeting called to order at 2.15 o'clock. Mr. May, trom the committee appointed for the pur- pose, reported the following nominations for officers for the society for the ensuing year. The report is as fol- lows: To the Officers and Members of the American Fisheries Soctety: Your committee appointed to nominate officers for the ensuing year, respectfully recommend that the fol- lowing be elected to fill the respective offices for which they are named: President, Herschel Whitaker, Detroit, Mich. Vice-President, Fred. Mather, Cold Spring Harbor, N. Y. Treasurer, Henry C. Ford, Philadelphia, Pa. Rec. Secretary, E. P. Doyle, New York City. Cor. Secretary, Tarleton H. Bean, Washington, D. C. Executive Commtttee, Hy H. Carey: LaGrange; Ga William H. Bowman, Rochester, N. Y. LL. Streuber, Erie, Pa. William M. Hudson, Hartford, Conn. N. K. Fairbank, Chicago, Ill. C. V. Osborn, Dayton, O. B. P. Porter, San Francisco, Cal. W. L. May, Wm. A. But Ler, Jr., | Commit HH. H; Garey; # On motion, and by unanimous consent, the report of the committee was adopted and the officers named elec- ted | . The question of the selection of a place for the next meeting of the society was then brought up, and on motion it was unanimously decided to hold the next meeting of the society in Chicago, on the second Wed- nesday “of August, 1893. The secretary read an invitation from J. W. Collins, Chief of the Department of Fish and Fisheries at the World’s Fair, tendering the use of the Fisheries Building for the meeting of the society. He also read an invitation from the Michigan World's Fair Commissioners, tendering the use of the Michigan Building for the same purpose. On motion, it was ordered that the invitations be referred to the Committee on Local Entertainment when appointed, and that the secretary acknowledge their receipt. Mr. May then moved that a Committee of Five on Local Entertainment be appointed from the States nearest Chicago. Motion was carried, and the committee was appointed as follows: Wm. L. May, Omaha, Neb. Calvert Spensley, Mineral Point, Wis. Wor, A Butler, Jy Detroit, Mich. tet Gunckel,T oledo; ©: Sw. Bantlett;:Ouiney, Ul: Mr. Hoyt Post of Michigan, moved the following resolution : ‘Resolved, That this society regards with disfavor any “movement looking towards the turning over to the “United States Government the work of the said com- ““missions in propagating and planting fish and in the “‘regulation and protection of the fisheries in the several «States. That the jurisdiction over fisheries within the 10 “ territorial boundaries of each State belongs naturally to ‘that State, That there is an abundant field for the co- ‘operative action of the State, and of the general gov- ‘ernment in the propagation and distribution of food ‘‘and game fish and anything which would detract from ‘the State’s interest in this respect will be detrimental ‘“to the end aimed at of restocking the waters of this “country, and we recommend a course which will “encourage and stimulate greater interest and larger ‘‘expenditures in this great work by the several States, ‘‘and at the same time increased interest in the matter by “the United States. And be it further ‘Resolved, That the purposes and aims of this society ‘are in direct antagonism with any business which tends. ‘to the depopulation of the waters to enrich the land, “we therefore condemn purse seining of menhaden or ‘of any fish food or food fish for the purpose of grind ‘ing the same into guano or oil.” A division of the question was asked for, and the first resolution was adopted and the second laid on the table until the next meeting. Mr. James Benkard moved the appointment of a committee to prepare resolutions expressing the grief of the society at the sudden death of ex-President George Shepard Page. The committee appointed was as follows: James Benkard, Fred, Mather, W. L. May. The following named gentlemen were then unani- mously elected active members of the society : Archibald Mitchell, — - - - Norwich, Conn. E. W. Leavenworth, - - Wilkesbarre, Pa. Geo. T. Mills, - - - - Carson City, Nev. AAG all; . . = (Reeds*Creek,) NJ W.S. Gavitt, - - - - Lyons, N. Y. T. E. Krumbholtz, - - Wawbeek, N. Y. Saranac Lake Hotel Co., : Saranac Inn, N. Y. Witherbee WiiC,,. = - - Port ‘Henry, Noi: F. J. Anderson, - B. F. Van Valkenburg, A. Booth Packing Co., - S. Zweighaft, - Ri W. Jones, -). : G. S. Klock, - Henry G. Preston, - J. D. Quackenbos, - WS. Webb,” >< - John N. Titcomb, - Joseph O. Miller, - Edward F. Brush, M. D., C. C. Warren, - - E. W. Adams, : James Yalden, - - Geo. W. Upston, - Teer OWers,. .u.- - iiabes Oiensend, + - HB, W; Ayers, - - W. H. Rogers, - Alex. Taylor, Jr., Jas. A. Greuseback, John Q. Underhill, - Daniel Morrell, . E. G. Whitaker, - Chas. F. Orvis, - Robert Lenox Banks, - aod Foulds, MD: Fabio, eel, 2 i Peovierrnn, Ph. Dy E Bradley. M.D; - DoW. be rmgies, ‘= Samuel Garman, - . Heber Bishop, M. D., a WOxie - - W. H. Bowman, - Chas. F. Chamberlayne. David G. Hackney, - 11 - Whitestone, N. Y. - New York City. . Chicago, Il. - Philadelphia, Pa, - Syracuse, N. Y. Rome, N. Y. - Brooklyn, N Y. Columbia College, N. Y. - New York City. Rutland, Vt. =) Wt kaseo. Nit XG - Mount Vernon, N. Y. - Waterbury, Vt. - iro Wallet. IND, =i Pane Site, Ny Ve - Warren, Ohio. Lansingburg, N. Y. - Fair Haven, Vt. . Bangor, Me. Amherst, Nova Scotia. Mamaroneck, N. Y. - New Rochelle, N. Y. New Rochelle, N. Y. . Hartford, Conn. - New York City. - ' Manchester, Vt. - Albany, N. Y. - Glens Falls, N. Y. =") (Alpani NAM. - Albany, N. Y. - New York City. - New York City. Cambridge, Mass. - Boston. Mass. Mh bes ao) ha te aig a - Rochester, N. Y. - Buzzards Bay, Mass. Fort Plain, N. Y. 12 Fred Mather, . - Cold Spring Harbor, N. Y. Robert Hamilton, - - Greenwich. N. Y. Wm. F, Balkam, = - - Rochester, N. Y. Dr. Bushrod W. James, - - Philadelphia, Pa. On the proposition of G. Brown Goode, Dr. Decio Vinciguerra, University of Rome, Italy, was elected a corresponding member. On the proposition of Mr. A. R. Cheney,’ Mr Thomas Andrews, Westgate House, Guilford, Eng- land, was elected a corresponding member of the society. VYhe reading of papers then continued until adjourn- ment. {he titles of the papers read during the entire session, morning and afternoon, were as follows: “Fish and Fishine in Ohio,” J. E.-Gunekel ie ledo. “Planting Fry vs. Planting Fingerlings,” James Nevins, Madison, Wis. “Food. for Fishes,” A, N. Cheney, >Glens— Pam N.Y; “The Present Status -of,. Trout Culture,” Willan ae Seal, Washington, D, C. “American Salmon and Other Food Fishes,” Dr. Bushrod W. James, Philadelphia, Pa. “Feeding Trout Fry,” ‘Fred Mather, Cold’ Spire Harbor, NY; ‘ The Susquehanna; Past, Present and Future,” A. F. Clapp, Sunbury, Pa. “Rearing Trout for Distribution,” Frank N. Clark, Northville, Mich. “Fry us. Fingerlings,” Herschel Whitaker, Detroit, Mich. ‘““The Past and Future of Fishculture; Or, a Histori- cal Glance at the Cultivation of the Waters,” M. Raveret Wattel, Paris, France. “ Historical Review of the Fisheries of the Great Lakes,” Herschel Whitaker, Detroit, Mich. 13 “State Control of State Fisheries,” Hoyt Post, De- troit, Mich. “Artificially Reared Trout,” W. L. Gilbert, Plymouth, Mass. ‘“National Salmon Park,” Livingston Stone, Charles- town, N. H. ‘“‘ Fish-ways,” W. H. Rogers, Amherst, N. S. “The Eggs of the Rainbow Trout,” W. F. Page, Neosho, Mo. * Naturalization of Fisheries,” Chas. F. Chamber- layne, Buzzards Bay, Mass. These papers and the discussion they excited will be found in full in part two of the proceedings. Minutes of an adjourned meeting of the American Fisheries Society, held in the parlors of the South Side Club, Oakdale, Long Island, Thursday, May 26th, 1892. Meeting called to order at 11 o'clock. On the proposition of W. F. Page, Mr. E. Chazari, No. 11 Arco de San Augustine, City of Mexico, was elected a corresponding member of the society. Upon motion of Mr. Hoyt Post, the following resolu- tion was unanimously adopted: ‘“‘ Resolved, That the several Fish Commissioners of “the United States be and hereby are by virtue of the ‘“‘offices they hold, declared members of the American “Fisheries Society, And be it further ‘Resolved, That the Secretary write to such Commis- ‘“‘sioners at once, informing them of ‘tthe aims of the “society, and request their acceptance of membership.” The resolution regarding purse nets laid on the table at the last meeting, then came up and after considerable discussion, participated in by Col. McDonald, Geo. M. Robeson, 4/45... Huntington, Hoyt Post, Herschel 14 Whitaker and others, the resolution was amended and unanimously adopted, The resolution as amended is as follows : ‘“« Resolved, That the purposes and aims of this society *‘are in direct antagonism with any business which leads ‘“‘to the depopulation of the waters to enrich the land ‘and we therefore condemn purse seining of menhadan ‘or any fish food or food fish for the purpose of grinding “the same into guano or oil, within three miles of the ‘shore at low water mark.” On motion and by unanimous consent, the secretary was directed to write the several fish commissioners of the United States, requesting that each board of com- missioners delegate one of its number to prepare a his- torical review of the work of the respective commissions since their creation, to be read at the Twenty-second Annual Meeting of the society in Chicago, in 1893. On motion, the following resolution was unanimously adopted : “Resolved, That the thanks of the American Fisheries ‘Society are hereby extended to the New York Society “for the Protection of Fish and Game, for the entertain- “ment given the society, and to the South Side Club for “the courtesy extended at their club preserves on Long ‘“‘Island. And be it further ‘“ Resolved, That the thanks of the society be tendered “to the management of the Holland House for the use ‘“‘of the rooms in which the meetings of the society have “been held, and for other courtesies extended. And be ne parther ““ Resolved, That the New York Society for the Pro- “tection of Fish ‘and Game and the South Side Club be ‘‘made honorary members of this society.” Meeting then adjourned szne ade. EDWARD. Pi DOYLE, Recording Secretary. PAPERS READ BEFORE THE American Fisheries Society, Vel dE, DISeCUSslONs, MAN 257TH; 1892. PAR yy SECOND: FISH AND FISHING IN OHIO. By JoHn E. GUNCKEL. For 200 miles within the boundary lines of Ohio the blue waters of Lake Erie dash against rocky cliffs, mingle with tributary rivers or peacefully roll over long stretches of white sandy beach. This great open expanse in early days abounded in food fishes. The choicest were only selected of the now twenty species eagerly sought after. The few inhabitants found the supply more than sufficient for their needs; and indeed it seemed practica- bly inexhaustible. But as the population increased and industries became diversified, men gradually came to take fish to meet the demand of those living at a dis- tance from the water, making what had hitherto been an occasional occupation, a regular means of livelihood—an ‘industry. Here began the unequal struggle between the inhabitants of the land and water in which was foreseen the inevitable result of the virtual extinction of the weaker creatures. In addition to what then seemed to be wise legislation for the protection of fish, the science of fishculture came to the relief, and it was then seen 16 that man was to be used as an instrument to prevent the extinction of the species of food fishes in our inland waters. Inthe fall of 1875 the first governmental efforts. were made to hatch whitefish. The parent fish were first obtained, the eggs extracted and fertilized, and it is. a fact that almost every egg was safely hatched and the young deposited in the waters of Lake Erie. From that date to the present time the State, through its efficient Commission, has deposited in Lake Erie 400,000,000 of young whitefish. Since the spring of 1880 upward of 200,000,000 of pickerel have been hatched by the Com-. mission, and deposited in Ohio waters suitable for them; and from the last official report, dated May 16, 1892, out of four hundred quarts of pickerel spawn sixty per cent. was hatched. Not only do people living along the lake shore find almost daily supply of food, fishes for consumption in a fresh state, but by proper methods of preparation and preservation the product of the lake is fitted for long continued keeping and trans- portation to distant markets where fishing is difficult, impracticable or impossible. With able legislation and increased assistance of the Fish Commissioners the sup- ply of food fishes does not equal the demand, and the fisherman’s cry, from shore to shore, is the scarcity of favorite fishes, and each year the perfected net appliances increase. Closer and closer are the spawning grounds limited, deeper and longer are the gill-nets and smaller the meshes until whitefish the size of herring are taken from the deepest waters. Back in the seventies sturgeon were so plentiful and useless that hundreds were daily thrown out of the nets back into the water. To-day nearly every part of the fish is utilized and the net fisher- ° man is fortunate who captures four or five in his daily catch. Again the fishculturist is heard from and he introduces methods of artificial hatching, and it is esti- mated that 80 per cent. of the young sturgeon released in the waters live to take care of themselves—so hardy 17 and capable of self.defense and self supporting are the fry. I have the pleasure of personally knowing many of Ohio’s foremost fishculturists who have spent years in propagating fish, studying and becoming familiar with the habits and devising ways and means to check the rapid decrease and to replenish depleted waters. Many of the commercial fishermen appreciate and recognize their efforts, and while the fishermen are gradually covering, with killing nets, nearly all the territory where fish visit—for scarcity of fish means more twine—they cheerfully suggested plans and ideas to aid those who are so deeply interested in preserving our food fishes. The following notes of interest I have gleaned from wholesale fishermen along the various lake ports. Of whitefish, ten out of sixteen fishermen believed that twelve pei cent, of the fish deposited in the lake by the Commission were captured with gill nets before they reached one pound in weight in the deep water off the Pennsylvania shore. Twenty per cent. lived to maturity, and this could be increased fifteen per cent. more if the young fish were treated like we raise little pigs—deposited in pens in suitable water around the islands until old enough to take careof themselves In 1857,0n the south shore of the lake, during almost every strong northeastern gale the spawn of whitefish was cast up on the beach in such immense quantities it was often strewn to the depth of 2 or 3in., several feet wide, for miles along the shore. The general complaint, although reluctantly admitted, is that the meshes of the rapidly increasing gill nets are too small, they are destroying whitefish weighing less than ilb., while the leaders of the pound nets are increasing to such an alarming extent as to seriously interfere with navigation, let alone keeping back the fish en route to their spawning grounds. All fishermen agree that the natural spawning grounds of the lake are at the mouth of the Detroit River. Whitefish, pickerel, bass, saugers, sturgeon and other food fishes pay annual visits to this 18 point; the pickerel depositing their eggs as they pass up the river, paying no attention to hatching or caring for their young. Sturgeon are caught while rolling around their spawning beds, or guarding their young. The bed of the river and following the channel far into the lakes is lit- erally alive with suckers of all sizes and kinds. ‘There is no spot on the chain of lakes equal to this clear, rapid river for small-mouthed black bass and other game fish > to spawn and thrive. The flavor of fish caught in this magnificent body of water isworld known. It is also an admitted fact, and well known by the writer, that the channel in Sandusky Bay, winding, as it does, through a broad expanse of shallow water, is the best protected body of water along the lake shore, and while other bays and tributary rivers formerly abounded with the beautiful white bass and are now almost extinct, this channel leading up the Sandusky River is alive with this clean- looking fish from June until late in the fall; and further inland, among the bends and narrow channels lined with blooming lilies, can be found in great numbers the finest large-mouthed black bass grounds in the world. Re- ferring to pickerel, bass and other food species, the ma- jority of fishermen agree that all channels leading to and from the lake through the bays and rivers proper should be kept clear of nets particularly in the spawning sea- sons, for eventually the net fishermen must be actually benefited by allowing a large number of fish to cast their spawn in waters above the roving egg-destroying marauders, for as the country with its drainage toward the lake is being tilled to an extent beyond belief the creeks and rivers rise so rapidly and so high that fish are found in great quantities in ditches miles inland from the lake. While the general public believe that unless some de- cided and effective measures are adopted to enable a large mumber of fish to safely reach their spawning grounds, there is great danger of extermination of our 19 lake food fishes; and while many of our commercial fish- ermen oppose protective legislation mainly because they object to any laws which shall limit their ability to take all the fish possible from a given water area in a given time, the thoughful fishermen express a willingness to co-operate with legislative enactments looking to thor- ough preservation of fish. My attention has been fre- quently called to the fact that there is no legislation on the statute books of Ohio which offers any protection to the game and food fish of Lake Erie during the spawning season. Any attempt at such legislation is met by the organized opposition of the men who wrongfully imagine that their private interests are thereby attacked, and who have been able thus far to prevent the passage of many measures that would have materially benefited them in the end. On the other hand, most men do not care to expend time and money in urging a species of legislation from which they are to reap only an indirect and remote advantage. Neither for the same reason do they incline to aid in securing a thorough and impartial enforcement of such laws as already exist. Many believe in restriction as to the seasons and methods of taking _ fish, but they are unwilling to act as either prosecutors or witnesses when such laws are violated. In this con- nection I might add that in all legislative action taken, whether by national or State governments, care should be taken to properly define what constitutes the waters of the lakes and inland waters. One of the most prolific causes of misunderstanding as to the meaning of various laws now passed has been the claim made by some that the waters of the lake extended up the rivers as far as tide water; it will thus be seen that the efforts to protect the rivers are paralyzed by having their mouths filled with nets. Another trouble is the lack of uniformity of the laws in adjoining States, thus in Ohio some of our best streams are fully protected against destructive net fishing, while their mouths, emptying into the lake in an 20 adjoining State, are completely blockaded with nets, the nets even extending from either shore across the chan- nels. Uniformity would give a clearer comprehension as to the meaning of the law in both States. Another serious difficulty in the enforcement of exist- ing laws is that the officials to whom such enforcement is committed are left without fixed adequate compensa- tion for their services. An Ohio fish warden receives no remuneration, and even his time and labor in securing an arrest and prosecution are wholly unremunerated un- less he secures a conviction. We need most of all to educate the people into a broader and fuller appreciation not alone of the rights of others but of their own interests. We shall succeed in this work when we make the general public comprehend that in protecting the rights of others in the fish of our open waters we are in reality preserving our own, Relative to interior fish and fishing the subject is one of such vast interest that it would require another paper much longer than this to do it justice. It is gener- ally believed that the laws are better observed than along the lake shore; that game fish are increasing and the people are in sympathy with the commission and appre- ciate their labors. With the Ohio State fish car, the Buckeye, the commission has deposited some twelve thousand black bass, weighing from a half to three pounds in the rivers and creeks throughout the State. I could hardly close without a word about our rod and line fishermen. There seems to be implanted in the nature of every Buckeye angler the love of outdoor sport; they recognize fishing as the keenest of enjoyments. While it is the common destiny of mankind to labor from the cradle to the grave, toil and hardship are brightened by and often endured for, the prospect of angling, with its anticipated hopes, fears and pleasures. I can say from a personal experience that the desire to kill and destroy is more a potent motive, with our rod fishermen, than a necessity. It isa conceded fact that Ohio contains more 21 truthful anglers than any State in the Union the city of Toledo leading. I will relate an incident narrated re- cently to me by that venerable fisherman, Hon. Emery D. Potter, illustrating the pleasure of fishing with hook and line in Ohio, under favorable circumstances. ‘Among the many pleasant incidents of hook and line fishing,” said the judge, ‘and one of the most successful afternoon outings I ever experienced, was in the year 1863, with Dr. Theodatus Garlick of Cleveland, Ohio. The doctor was a great hunter and frequented the marshes at the head of Lake Erie. One afternoon when hunting was poor I persuaded him to accompany me in a boat to try his luck at fishing. He accepted and we anchored in one of the many guts around Gard Island, and began casting for black bass. We fished thirty minutes and succeeded in landing thirty-two bass, the largest weighing four, the smallest two pounds. A fair afternoon’s fishing. In reply to my question, to the doctor, the next day ‘to go a-fish- ing,’ he looked very serious and said, ‘Well, judge, having no use for the fish I am honestly ashamed to fish for the fun of it.’” FOOD FOR FISHES. By A. NELSON CHENEY. As a tule fishermen give themselves little concern about the food supply of the fishes which they delight to capture with rod and reel, with fly and bait. If a trout as it is taken from the landing-net is found to be plump and well fed, the fact is noted as it is placed on a bed of ferns in the creel; and so, too, when a trout proves to be gaunt and lean its condition is commented upon, but not one angler in a hundred ever thinks of making the least effort to supply food which will enable the gaunt, lean fish to become plump and well fed. Nearly ten years ago I prepared a paper upon the sub- ject of Food Fish and Fish Food, which was read before this society. Since that time great strides forward have been made in all branches of the science of fishculture, and fishermen are reaping the benefits; but to-day, out- side of fishcultural establishments, the subject of sup- plying the ever-increasing output of fish with an abund- ance and variety of food receives little if any more attention than it did then. This is a matter in which fishermen, if they are inclined, can render valuable aid to the hatcheries and fish-breeding establishments that are planting fish in public waters. I am of the opinion that there may be many anglers throughout the land willing to render assistance in in- creasing the food supply of fishes in waters not within the direct influence of the National or State Fish Com- missions, if they could know how to go about it, and at the same time know what a simple matter it is to furnish a diversity of food to fishes that from natural causes may be restricted in their diet. Primarily, I address the anglers, but the subject is so broad a one that in applying the suggestions that I shall make, others may be inter- ested. As an example of stocking water with fish food not native to it, I may cite a lake in the State of New 23 York, which is thirty-six miles long and from one to two and one-half miles wide, that was planted with 18,000 crayfish in 1878. The plant was made in two or three streams at one end of the lake, and for several years past the crayfish have been found in abundance from one end to the other of the thirty-six miles of water. A form of fish food that I have been and am specially interested in is the fresh-water shrimp, Gammarus fasczatus of Say, or perhaps more frequently called Gammarus pulex. We have three species of Gammarus in our ponds, brooks and rivers, and Prof. S. I. Smith says of them: ‘They probably breed throughout the spring and summer, as females taken at various times from March to August are found carrying eggs or young in various stages of development.” He infers that, as species allied to the fasciatus develop rapidly, they breed several times each season. When trout are found to have dark-red flesh with cream-like curds between the flesh flakes, it is a sure sign that the waters they inhabit produce crustacean food in abundance. I have transplanted shrimp in trout streams with the best results, but never have tried them in ponds. Cale- donia Spring Creek. on which one of the hatching stations of the New York Fish Commission is situated, is famous the country over for its well-conditioned trout and its abundance of fish food. The Castalia stream in Ohio is similar in character to Caledonia Creek, and the fish food in many respects is identical because of transplanting mosses and water weeds with accompanying insect and crustacean forms of life from the latter to the former. Prof J. A. Lintner examined a can of mosses and aquatic plants sent to him from Caledonia Creek after ‘his atten- tion had been called to the remarkable abundance of trout in the stream, abounding, it was believed, as in no other natural locality in the United States.” When the can was opened the mosses and plants swarmed with insect larve and crustaceans to such an 24 extent that he could not believe that it was a fair repre- sentation of the fauna of the creek, and wrote to know if other animal life than that which naturally accompanied the plants had not been placed in the can, but none had been introduced except those contained in the plant when gathered. Shrimp were so numerous in the moss that one could not raise a handful of it without noticing the very large number of these creatures present. The water from the can was poured into an aquarium and at once ‘‘numerous examples of the minute crustacean cyclops were observed, resting against its glass sides or darting swiftly through the water, the females bearing on each side of them the ovoid sac of eggs which forms so con- spicuous a feature of their appearance.” Prof. Peck, the State Botanist, who examined the aquatic plants from Caledonia, said: “There is among the mosses one of special interest, both because of its rare occurrence and because of the noticeable coincidence between its abundant growth there and the abundance of animal life that accompaniesit. * * It isknown to botanists by the name Aypuum noteraphilum, or moisture-loving moss. Franklin and Lancaster counties, Pennsylvania, are its previously reported localities, where it is said to grow in limestone springs. It was dis- covered in the Caledonia Creek several yearsago * * * but up to the present time this remains its only known locality in our State.” Prof. Peck advises that in trans- planting this moss, limestone waters should be selected, although one of the mosses associated with it at Caledo- nia occurs in waters free from lime. Prof. Lintner says that the small crustacez of the family Gammarizde un- dergo no metamorphoses after their escape from the egg, and therefore give promise of no difficulty in their pro- pagation, and he thinks that in time every order for 5,000 brook trout will be accompanied with an order for 100,000 shrimps. The food of the shrimps is in doubt, “but they are believed to be principally vegetable feed- 20 ers, although eating animal matter in a decayed state when convenient to them.” Again quoting from Prof. Lintner: “The ordinary laws of nature give us a prod- igality of insect life almost infinitely in excess of fish fecundity. A fish deposits her spawn but once during the year, but in the aphis or plant louse in one year there may be twenty generations. Latreille says that a female aphis produces about twenty-five young each day, and Reaumur proved by experiment that a single aphis might be the progenitor of nearly six billion descendants during her life. The crustaceans are also remarkably prolific, * * * the proposition to propagate crustaceans and insects for fishculture must be regarded as intimately connected with that of transplantation—perhaps as a corollary of it.” Mr. Thomas Andrews of Guildford, England, a noted pisciculturist whose reputation as a successful fish propa- gator is broader than his native land. in writing me of some large fish in one of his ponds, said that they were grown in ponds containing an extraordinary amount of natural food, which he made a point of cultivating. I asked him to tell me what this food consisted of and his manner of rearing it, and he writes as follows: ‘WestcaTE House, GuILprorb, Eng., May 7, 1892. “T make a great point of natural food for my trout, and devote several boxes of 10 or 12ft. long, 6ft. wide and rft. deep to that purpose, besides numerous small ponds and side streams. In order to appreciate the value of the principal, and I consider the best, food for young trout, viz., Gammarus pulex, one must observe them at this ‘season of the year, and they will be found in pairs. Ifa pair is captured; the male insect detaches itself from the female, and she will look large on the abdomen and of an orange color. If she is placed in the palm of the hand and slightly pressed with a camel’s hair pencil, the young will be squeezed from her. This is my food for young 26 fry! The young shrimp is just the size for a hungry trout seven weeks old, and I have often brought the Gammarus up from my ponds to the hatchery and fed them there. There are, of course, other insects which are very suitable for the young fish, and I cultivate largely the ‘alder fly,’ whose eggs are to be found on the rushes. and grass hanging over the streams or ponds in May and June in England. I collect these eggs and hatch them out, turning the larvee into the water. I need hardly tell you that they are almost microscopic, and just the thing for the young fish. Then there is the ‘grannom fly,’ which I cultivate by bringing home the eggs which are found in bunches, attached to rushes, bits of stick, grass and woodwork in the rivers. To-day I had a can of gran- nom eggs sent up, and I should think there is a bushel basketful of these. They will be sent down to my ponds on Monday and placed just as they are in among weeds. and rushes and will hatch in due time. The May-fly we can and do introduce in the same way, but until last sea- son they were put into a pond where there were about 15,000 yearlings, and they stood but little chance to in- crease. Last season the eggs of the May-fly had a place devoted to them, where there were no fish, and we have found quantities of larve already. We also cultivate the Lzmnzade (snails), and the young of these make cap- ital food for my fish of all ages. We feed the snails and shrimps on liver and horseflesh, and where my man washes his meat sieve the snails have collected in heaps. and devour all that is washed off the sieves My experi- ence has taught me that one yearling fish is worth a hundred or a thousand fry for stocking purposes, yet I do not deny that a great many fish can be saved in the fry stage by artificial feeding. I get fewer fish, perhaps (by feeding natural food), but I get monsters of 6, 7, 8 and gin. in a year, and my yearlings fetch three times. the price of some other pisciculturists. Public opinion also in England is in favor of yearling or two-year old 20 fish for stocking purposes, and the results are more sat- isfactory by far. We cannot get anything like enough yearlings or two-year olds to supply the demand, and most people over here have given up stocking with fry. There is of course a sale for fry in England, as proper rearing ponds have in many cases been made, but the general opinion is in favor of yearlings.” Mr. Andrews'’s letter shows the way to vast possibilities, not only in the line of rearing trout fry in ponds on nat- ural food, but in supplying mature fish in wild waters with a generous addition to their larder by transplanting eggs, larvee or imagos of various insects. It is a most fascinating subject, but the pages already written warn me that I must be brief. The alder-fly and grannom-fly, referred to by Mr. Andrews, belong to the dun tribe, the former being the alder, orl or light dun, and the latter the green-tail or shell-fly of the fly-fisherman. The duns belong to the family PAryganzde and are called caddis- flies, and the larve are called caddis-worms, and are sometimes confused with the May-fly, which they should not be. The dun or caddis-flies are so common, that a description of any one of the score or more species is un- necessary. The larvee or creeper cases are hollow cylin- ders, smooth inside, composed of straw, grass roots, small stones and shells, and closed atoneend. They are excellent trout food; every trout fisherman is familiar with them, and they are easily collected for transplant- ing. D. Barfuth, of the University of Bonn (Report U. S. Fish Commission 1873 and’74 and 1874 and’75, p. 735), examined a number of the common trout of Europe (farzo) and found these to contain the creeper cases of Phryganide as follows: In one, 136 cases; in another, 585; 1n another, 116; in another, 186, and in another, 115. Of six trout examined, the cases were found in all the stomachs, and also in the entrails; in one, the intestinal canal, as far as the anus, was completely stuffed with the cases, 28 A book written by a lady for fly-fishermen, with the title, ‘‘ Favorite Flies,” soon to be issued from the press of Houghton, Mifflin & Co., Boston, will contain six plates of natural insects, including the different stages, of the May, caddis, stone and other flies. Last year I experimented with the May-fly, Ephemera, to discover if it could be transplanted to waters where it was unknown, and found that it would bear safely a journey of twenty-four hours, at least. This fly is called the dog-fly, and one of the species—there are more than two dozen—is called shad-fly, and they are the “drakes” of the fly-fishermen, the ‘“‘green drake” being the largest and best known Of the abundance of the May-fly it is said (Westwood's Introduction to the Classification of Insects), that in some pools of Europe it is customary to collect their dead bodies and use them for manure. The distinguished naturalist Reaumur gives this account (Introduction to Entomology : Kirby and Spruce): “‘ The myriads of Hphemere which filled the air over the cur- rent of the river, and over the bank on which I stood, are neither to be expressed nor conceived. When the snow falls with the largest flakes, and with the least in- terval between them, the air is not so full of them as that which surrounded us with Ephemera. Scarcely had I remained in one place a few minutes when the step on which I stood was quite concealed with a layer of them from two to four inches in depth.” This was near the River Marne, in France. I know personally of but few places where the flight of May-fly is in clouds, but in one place in New York it closely approaches, if it did not equal, that related by Reaumur. Ina flight of May-fly there will be discovered green, gray and purplish-black drakes. At first all are green, the female changing to gray and the male to purplish-black. Before my experiments with the May-fly on drakes, had extended beyond confining them to see how long they would live, the Azshzng Gazette, London, 29 printed an article written by Major W. G. Turle, in which he described a completely successful experiment in transplanting and establishing the May-fly in waters where it was previously unknown. I gathered my flies in a bait bucket and a tin biscuit ee: oe Major Turle improved upon that by using band-boxes with lines of worsted from side to side for perches. The flies were caught by picking them from the bushes and placing them in the boxes, and the boxes were taken by railroad train to the waters which it was desired to stock, and there the flies were released on the bank. Major Turle was of the opinion that it required two years for the eggs to mature, but, as will be seen from Mr. Andrew’s letter, it requires but a year. The illustration of the larvee or creeper of the May-fly used in this paper was prepared for Mr. Frederic M. Halford’s work, ‘Floating Flies and How to Dress Them,” but was rejected for another process, and was very kindly loaned by Mr. R. B. Marston, editor of the Fishing Gazette, London, and a corresponding member of this society. The illustration is 5in. long, and a particularly fine cut, but the natural creeper is less than rin. in length. The larvee as well as the fly can be transplanted, and besides furnishing food for the fish the diet may teach and en- courage the trout to rise to a fly. The Chairman invited remarks and discussion on the two papers now before the society: Dr. JAMes—The subject of ‘Food for Fishes” is much too important to be passed without discussion. I was very much interested in the paper, because it leads to the all-important subject of giving us good fish. If our fish are lean and have not a good flavor, we cer- tainly lose all enjoyment for that kind of food; and the more we can improve the variety as well as the fatness or quality of the fish, the better it is in the market. Of 30 course the more valuable any of these fishes become to us as articles of commerce, the greater the desire of those who fish to obtain these better varieties. It seems to me that this is a subject that ought to be taken into consideration not only by the different States and by those who are in the habit of making fish culture part of their business or their pleasure we may say, but that it ought to be in some way encouraged by the gov- ernment. There are out in the Rocky Mountains, many of the streams off in the mountain districts that are not yet well known and uninhabited, that ought to be stocked with fish. In stocking these fish, this subject of prepar- ing food for them, or the kind of food on which they can survive, ought to go hand in hand. There are thousands and thousands of persons who are dependent on the internal fish supply away off in the interior of our coun- try, which supply can only be kept up by stocking the streams and lakes which have their sources in the Rocky Mountains and the other mountains north and south. And.the government really should, it seems to me, take this whole matter into consideration, and while it is transplanting the eggs of different kinds of fish that will survive in those waters, they should make a general law which would not only stock them, but supply the proper kind of food. Out in those waters in the Rocky Moun- tains, where there is nothing else but rocks in some places, there must be some sort of material ‘supplied such has been suggested by this paper. Those of you who have been there will have noticed the contrast between the rich, luxuriant growth we have here in the East, where there is a great amount of moisture, where there is a great supply of those kinds of flies, insects and other animals, which are not to be found out there. Some varieties of this food probably could not be trans- planted, but certainly there are some which would grow there and flourish. But of course there is no use placing them there until the fish have been grown and transplanted. dl Mr. MatTHER—This subject of food is the one import- ant subject. It has been stated several times that in Europe there is somebody who has a system by which he breeds insect life and small crustaceans, and drives his little fry from one post or point to the other. I have investigated to some extent, and I never could find any- body that could show that it was a practical thing to be done. Of course wild trout feed largely upon insects, but I have never seen any way clear to breeding insects in quantities sufficient to feed any number of trout. If a man has a pond with only four or five thousand trout in, it is possible there may be insect life enough to sup- port them, But I did try years ago—it must have been twenty years ago, I think—to breed mosquito larve for trout; it was very good food for the little fellows; the _ only trouble was to get enough of it. Taking rainwater barrels, and straining them and getting the larvz out; and the little trout feed well on it. The trouble was to get it in quantities—to get pounds of it. Another trou- ble is that the mosquito larve does not come quite early enough for those that are in the earliest stages and begin to want food. ; But the May-fly and its larvae are excellent food for trout. I have seen them on the Hudson River when I have been hatching shad; at nights they would some- times darken our lanterns, and wash up along the shore the dead bodies in such quantities so that you might smell them. Along the Hudson and Connecticut Rivers they are known as the Eel-fly. But how to propagate those things, to get enough so you could estimate it by pounds, I really don’t see the way, but I should like to very much. Mr. GitBertT—It has been my experience in regard to freshwater shrimp, we always find them in every good trout stream—in Massachusetts especially. Trout must have a temperature of water not above sixty-five degrees at any time, but rather a temperature of not far from fifty degrees. They will germinate, thrive, breed 32 and increase in water of that temperature and none other. In my brook, you take up a watercress, or any kind of aquatic plant, and it is literally alive with fresh- water shrimp. We do nothing to breed them or increase: them. Trout are feeding on them all the time; I pre- sume there are hundreds of thousands. In one place I have got 20,000 yearlings that are from four to seven inches long. There are more or less aquatic plants in the brook; take one of them up and it is actually alive with the freshwater shrimp. They must increase very fast, for these yearlings are constantly feeding on them. Now in regard to the feed of young fry: We begin to feed along about the first of April, and at that time of year there is any amount of (heidic) spawn, in March and April, and that has been in my experience the best feed that I could get as food for the young fry. I can buy any quantity in Boston; I presume you can in New York. I have got it up to about the 2othof May. Up to that time we feed on_(heidic) spawn exclusively. After that, by the time that is gone, they are an inch and a half long, some of them two inches in length, then. we begin to feed them on liver, pulverized very fine, - THE PRESENT STATUS OF TROUT CULTURE. By Wo. P. SEAL. Trout culture may truthfully be said to have been, since its inception, the great fishcultural school. Whatever doubts may have existed in the past regard- ing the fundamental and underlying principles of fish- culture, they no longer have a place in the minds of those who are cognizant of the present aspects and results of the development of the science. Fishculture is no longer on the defensive, but stands to-day showing” economic results not achieved by any other branch of public work. Whatever attacks are yet made upon it. are levelled at trout culture generally. _It sometimes hap- pens that other branches of fishculture are assailed be- cause of the effects of local changes in catch and distri- bution of fish induced by changes in fishing methods, as with the shad; and because these are not understood by the general public who do not see beyond their local fishing interests. It is one of the misfortunes of our political system that for partizan advantage we often find a great deal of fault with everything originating with our political oppo- nents, and that we are not satisfied to applaud unless the beneficial results of a public policy can be properly cre- dited to our own particular party. We often differ on important public questions for no better reason, and with our legislators this often stands for statesmanship. It is probable, however, that there is in general less of parti- zanship in the support of fishcultural measures, and more of a common bond of fellowship among those interested in fishprotection and fishculture, than may be found in almost any other field of contemporary human interest. This is as it should be, and the bond should be strength- ened, and the unholy leaven of partizanship cast out as unworthy of a place in the minds of men working in a 34 common cause for the general good. Otherwise the enthusiasm of men is repressed, the halting and inefficient find their way into places for which they are unfitted, _ selfish motives prevail, progress is retarded, and the pub- lic mind becomes suspicious and uncertain. On this account the removal of men engaged in fishcultural work, for political reasons, should be unequivocally and unanimously condemned and rebuked by this society. It willonly be by the vigorous, unselfish and consistent action of those engaged in the work, that the bulwarks of safety for all will finally be established. It is unfortunately the case also that among fishcultur- ists, as among men engaged in other pursuits, a true scientific spirit does not always prevail. They are too easily satisfied and sometimes get into ruts from which they are not willing to emerge. When a man starts out with a preconceived theory, and spends his life in seek- ing for arguments to sustain his position, instead of searching for the truth alone, he makes but little pro- gress. Truth alone should be the goal, and whatever suggestion there might be from any source should be seized upon and examined with unprejudiced mind. ‘“What is the truth in the matter?” might well be the scientific worker’s: creed. A little broadening of our views and the inculcation of an ardent scientific spirit might result in a much more rapid progress in fish- cultural development, now that there is no longer uncer- tainty as to its economic value. The urgent insistance of fishculturists. in favor of their particular. methods, while decrying those of others without thorough experi- ment and observation, though it may show a confidence calculated to be .assuring, is not so strong as an argu- ° ment, as:a more patient and painstaking investigation would be. .. Moreover, where conflict of opinion reaches. such a pitch that each side denounces the’ work of the other as impracticable, or-of doubtful utility; unless it is a very clear case, the public mind is apt to decide that 3D there is a strong possibility of correct judgment on both sides. The wide divergence of opinion among trout culturists at the present time, as to the most effective methods of stocking, with the counter-argumeuts made, is not assur- ing to many well-wishers of this branch of fishculture. It seems to the writer that the time has not yet arrived when any phase of trout culture as yet developed in the United States, can be hailed as the ultimate limit of pos- sibility, or that the experimental stage is passed. It would be well, perhaps, before discussing the vari- ous aspects of trout culture, to. recall the arguments in favor of and against this branch of fishculture as carried on at the public expense, inasmuch as the periodicals of the country devoted to the dissemination of whatever relates to fishculture are open to virulent attacks, by irresponsible cranks, upon those engaged in that pursuit, charging them with being robbers, engaged in looting the treasuries of the State and National Governments, It is the usual policy to allow such attacks to pass unno- ticed, and, if there is doubt as to the value of trout cul-. ture, perhaps that is the wisest policy; but it has always seemed to the writer that the general public want, and have the right to know, the truth in the matter, and that if it can be shown by argument based on demonstrated experience, and not by unsupported allegations and invective, prompted by personal motives, that the work is of doubtful value, it should be abandoned for other branches of fishculture holding forth greater promise of usefulness. It is certainly quite easy to bring very plausible arguments to bear adversely on this question when not considered broadly, or if one side of it only be ° touched, and it is the belief of the writer that inasmuch as it is generally-conceded that to attain the’ best results in trout culture, vastly greater outputs, requiring greatly increased appropriations, are required, or, that more effective methods of stocking must be’ developed, it is 36 just as well that all attacks should be met by amicable and reasonable argument, as constant and persistent as the unsupported statements of its opponents. Once convince the people of its economic value of any phase of fishculture, and they will see to it that the legislators support it. Any dependence on partizan advantage, the support of a particular class of the population, or resort to ‘star chamber” methods in fishculture, will eventu- ally result in disaster to the cause. The most potent arguments against trout culture at the public expense, and especially as applied to the general gcovernment, are: First, That a few localities only are benefitted by attracting anglers thereto, and that the work should be carried on by the sections benefitted. Second, That the areas available for the purpose are rapidly diminishing by reason of the denudation of the land, thus destroying the great natural storage reservoirs and producing an alternation of droughts and floods, causing the destruction of the natural food supply, and raising the temperature of the water, and that nothing permanent can be accomplished and therefore the results are not, and cannot be, commensurate with the out- lay. These arguments, of course, have no weight with the angler; but public fishculture can be permanently estab- lished and maintained only upon economic consider- ations, and nothing is to be gained by evasion. It is therefore proper in the best interests of fishculture to refer to them, and to see if there is not a valid answer to them. The advantages of healthful recreation to thousands of our best and greatest citizens might be advanced, but it is not sufficiently strong as an argument in the premises. There is, however, no doubt of the fact that a much greater interest and sympathy is awakened in the interest of fish- cululture generally through the more universally under- 37 stood methods of trout culture than by any other means. It has been in fact the nursery, the kindergarten, and col- lege of fishculture. But for the persistence with which it was followed by a few enthusiasts, while many fell out by the way, fishculture to-day would’be still looked upon as an impracticable dream. To-day trout culture has become largely supplementary to much greater branches of fishculture, but as a training school in the handling of fish it is yet paving the way to still greater fishcultural triumphs. The knowledge that is being gained by experiments in hybridization, accli- matization (transfer and adaptation), the studies upon the variation and modifications of species under changed conditions, although not as systematic and well sustained as is desirable, are of great value as observations and training which will have an influence and bearing on other phases of fishculture as they may be developed in the future. The economical handling of live fish, once so difficult, is rapidly being reduced to a science largely through the ex- periences of trout distribution, they being among the most difficult fish to transport. The keeping of trout in aquaria has been revolutionized by reason of experiment in this direction, the use of ice now not being considered necessary under a temperature of seventy-five degrees. The treatment of diseases of fish and the destruction of fungus on them is making progress mainly through the handling of trout. These, of course, may be considered as minor points only among the beneficial aspects of trout culture. The most important argument to be advanced is that it is be- lieved by all who are familiar with the subject that from a financial standpoint the aggregate of trout used for food in the United States could pay many times the sums devoted to their propagation. There is no question but that for artificial propagation they would have long since been exterminated. As from the very nature of the methods 38 of catch and distribution of trout as food, they not form- ing commercial fisheries, there can be no collection of statistics bearing thereon; this is a favorite point of attack. Whatever differences of opinion may exist regarding the economy or efficiency of the opposing methods employed in trout culture, the question remains as to whether the best possible results have been attained and whether there is no stimulus to further investigation and experiment. The economic cultivation of trout is assuming such importance as to cause in the State of Massachusetts a lively agitation concerning the marketing of such as are reared by artificial means during the close season. One of the claims of the opponents of trout culture has been that it is impossible to cultivate trout for market econo- mically. The value of this fact, therefore, should be appreciated as a great triumph of fishculture and should receive all encouragement. To be universally popular, fishculture must be based on economic or food consider- ations, and not on those of sport. Therefore it is to the interest of anglers to make such concessions in matters of this kind as to convince the general public that they are actuated by motives not wholly selfish. It is only by fair and politic treatment of such questions that the sympathies of the people will be aroused in the general interests of fishcultivation and protection, and through which the interest of the angler will be most effectually advanced. The opposite course will only keep alive the doubts and objections which prevent their advancement. It is only necessary to note the meagre appropriations of the State of New Hampshire, the efficiency of whose work is attracting universal attention among fishcultur- ists, to show the lack of general appreciation. Neither fishculturists nor anglers can afford to take ground that will retard the business of rearing trout for market. And the people themselves will decide the question of quality. 39 The ancient Romans had their pampered eels, and may not we have our pampered trout if we like? Are not frozen fish better than no fish? As well need we distress ourselves that everyone cannot have fish right out of the sea! Certainly, also, if the cultivated trout is so easily distinguishable from the wild, as is generally alleged, there should be no difficulty of providing adequate safe- guards against the violation of the laws protecting wild trout. It should be remembered, at all events, that whatever will demonstrate the economic value of fishculture is the strongest possible argument, and the most potent influ- ence, in its promotion. One of the anomalies of the trout culture of to-day is the division of sentiment regarding the planting of yearlings and fry. It isclaimed on the one hand that the planting of yearlings is much the more efficient method and instances are brought forward where repeated plantings of fry have failed to produce an effect on streams, whereas they have finally been successfully stocked with small plantings of yearlings. The arguments in favor of planting yearlings are that being grown to a length of three to five inches they are better able to escape their enemies and to protect them- selves against the Cottoids (millers’-thumbs and darters) infesting all rapid-running streams, where they harbor under the stones. There are also crayfish and large insect larve, such as the “helgramite” or ‘dobson”’ (larvee of Corydalis Cornutus), which will destroy the fry as they take shelter under the stones. Turn over the stones in a trout-brook, and small fish (Cottozds) will be seen to dart to shelter under other stones. These exist in great numbers in all such streams -but escape observation except of the collector, They will destroy fry as soon as deposited. Not so the year- lings which are able to turn the tables on them and to devour at least the smaller of, them. Many experiences 40 in Europe and the United States are given in support of this belief. There is another argument which has been advanced in the fact that in depositing yearlings they can be actu- ally counted and there can be no ground for suspicion concerning the statistics of output. On the other hand it is argued by some that the cost of rearing yearlings will not warrant it. It is also argued that when fish are brought to the yearling stage in cap- tivity their natures will have become changed, the natu- ral instinct of self-preservation will be lost, and thus they will become an easy prey to their enemies. It is also said that if fry are properly planted—that is, in the head waters or feeders to trout-brooks (spring streams )—there is but a small percentage of loss among them. While the writer is only presenting these opinions as a preliminary to the unfolding of the object he has in view in the preparation of this paper, he cannot refrain from saying that all his experience in the examination of small cold streams has shown them to be swarming with crayfish, cottoids and salamanders, clear to the fountain heads, the springs. That these are not noticeable to the casual observer and that their presence will not be known except by removing the stones. The “helgramite” is not always present, but the others are rarely, if ever, absent. Now in the best interest of trout culture, is not this a question worthy of closer examination and more ex- tended experiment? Is it well to consider the matter settled one way in one State and in a different way in another State? Ought not the question be the subject of continued experiment in the States interested in trout culture, without bias and with a desire to develop the truth only? Do not the best interests of trout culture require a sympathetic and progressive treatment of the subject ? 41 If, however, on the other hand, trout culture is estab- lished on so firm a basis that those engaged in it may safely indulge in dissensions and that we may consider that the ultimate of possibilities has been developed, the writer has only to apologize to the trout culturists of the country for his temerity in approaching the subject. This brings the writer to the point which he desires especially to present for consideration. At the last meeting of the American Fisheries Society, there occurred some desultory discussion concerning the cost of rearing yearling trout, during which reference was made to certain methods of producing natural food for the purpose, now used in Europe. It was developed that but scant consideration had been given to the methods in question and that but little was known about them. Those who are sufficiently: interested in the subject will find much of value in three papers, here- with appended, from the Bulletin of the U.S. Fish Com- mission for 1887 (Vol. VII., pages 203 to 215), viz., “«Self-Producing Food for Young Fish,” by Frank H. Mason, Consul; ‘The Piscicuitural Establishment at “Gremaz (Ain), France,” by C. Raveret-Wattel, and “Report on the Piscicultural Establishment at Piedra, Aragon, Spain,” by F. Muntadas. Perhaps the only fishculturist in this country who has given attention to the production of natural food for young trout, or at least who has recorded the. same, is Mr. Charles G. Atkins of Maine, but his experiments appear to have been confined to the larvee of flies (other- wise maggots), but in a somewhat improved manner. ‘The following items bearing on this question of natural food are taken from the report of the U. S. F. C. of 1652,p.i'T OTM VIZ.: “Thus the Deutsche Frscheret Zettung, 1880, p. 25, maintains that by feeding trout on worms their weight can be increased in one year from three-fourths of a pound to two anda half pounds;” and “As regards feed- 42 ing fish on snails, Dr. Molin says in his ‘ Rationellen Zucht der Suswasser Fische,’ p. 13, that Commander Desme had a pond containing 150 hectolitres on his farm at Puy Girard, in which he fed young salmon and trout on pounded snails, and by this method of feeding he in- creased their weight on an average by one pound per fish.” That forms of life inhabiting the water and being equally or more prolific than the flies or worms would be far preferable, needs no demonstration. However we may differ as to some features of the methods recounted in the papers in question, the funda- mental principles are essentially the same and deserve careful consideration, as numberless adaptations of them may be evolved. . A paper by Mr. A. N, Cheney, entitled “Stocking Trout-Waters With the May-Fly,” which appeared in Shooting and Fishing of March 31st, 1892, has still another and a very practical bearing on the subject in general, The propagation of natural food has been followed for a number of years by the writer in the cultivation of ornamental fishes with complete success, the possibilities. in the production of crustaceans being limited only by the space devoted to it. Further than that, if space was. lacking for the purpose no difflculty was ever experienced. in getting abundant supplies from nature. It is only a question of knowing how to go-about it. Stagnant waters everywhere, and especially those destitute of fishes, abound with certain kinds of them, but principally with Daphniaand Cyclops. Watercress beds and masses. of other aquatic plants are alive with other kinds of them, such as Asellus Vulgaris (Water-hog, water-asel) and Gammarus pulex (freshwater shrimp). Masses of dead leaves in the waters of springs or spring streams. harbor them in great numbers. But the conditions in nature that promote their development are not nearly so 43 favorable as they can be made by combining the natural and artificial. There is no necessity for the introduction of any foreign material to stimulate a production of the crustaceans, as the natural conditions afford all the requirements for sustenance, but infusions of dung or vegetable matter will attract ephemera and other flies to deposit their eggs. Nor is there any necessity for driv- ing fish from one pond to another, as the food can easily be caught and transferred to the fish basins. Let any trout culturist make a small cheese-cloth net, and using it among water cresses or other aquatic plants in shallow water, note the immense numbers of’ larvze and crustaceans that may be taken. Or, make the experiment of spreading the water flow- ing from a spring so as to make it shallow. Plant it thickly with water cress and nature will speedily stock it with animal life. Again, take a small pond or trench without fish and put into it a few Daphnia and Cyclops, and note the result. The experiences of the writer confirm those of the European fishculturists who have applied these methods to trout culture, and he has no hesitation in recommend- ing them to American trout culturists as worthy of gen- eral development. They are applicable as well to the rearing of any kind of fish, carnivorous or vegetarian (so called). The writer took the ground at the last meeting of the society that the time would come when greater areas would be devoted to the rearing of natural food for young fish than to the holding of the fish themselves, and that enough food to rear a yearling trout can be produced within the limits of a cubic foot of water. The advantages of an artificial system over purely natural conditions in the production of these creatures is the same as in the propagation of fish. Where exposed to the ravages of the fish themselves the multiplication will be slow, if not wholly arrested, because the breeders 44 will be destroyed as well. In separate basins, however, there is no restriction on the production and the fecundity is sO great the accumulation is enormous. Thus while one basin is being depopulated others can be repopulated. For young fry the smaller crustaceans (Daphnia and Cyclops) are required. When probably one and a half or two inches long they will be able to take the larger ones. Young trout in aquaria will always take these in preference to dead food, as it is natural they should. This work may be carried even further by making wood or cement lined trenches, covered with sashlike hot beds, through which the waters of springs may flow, for both the fish and food; the inlets and outlets to be protected by wire gauze. Such methods involve more expense in the beginning but might ee less expensive in the end. It must be confessed that the eaters only practical experience in this direction (except in the handling of, trout in aquaria) has been with ornamental fish, the gold fish in particular. With these he can say from actual experience that as many can be reared in a cemented basin covering 200 square feet and costing not over fifteen dollars (necessarily), than is usually produced in a natural pond of half an acre, and further, that the same results can be produced season after season without vari- ation, which is not the case in nature. And the reason is that in the pond the earlier hatch- ings will eat the later ones, while in the artificial basins they can be apportioned according to size. The old ones will eat the young. The young ones become the prey to innumerable forms of pond life from the vora- cious hydra to the multitude of water insects and larve, crayfish, frogs, snakes, herrons, kingfishers, etc. These elements of destruction, everywhere present in nature, can be wholly eliminated by the adoption of a proper system, while at the same time all the advantages of natural conditions may be afforded. 45 In the cultivation of gold fish it is possible to retard the growth by the feeding. This would not be desir- able in general fishculture and is only referred to as an evidence of the advantages to be gained by an established system over absolutely natural methods. Whatever reception awaits it, the presentation of this paper can at all events do no harm. It simply reflects the opinions of the writer looking at the question from a standpoint somewhat apart from that of the trout cul- turist or the angler, but possibly, however, with a more ardent belief in a progressive future for trout culture than is evidenced by either. A full discussion of such ques- tions is certainly calculated to advance the development of the latent possibilities of fishculture. This belief, at least, is the writer’s justification for trenching upon a field where he is not a practical worker, but an interested observer only. (Bulletin of the U. S. Fish Commission, 1887, p. 207.) THE PISCICULTURAL ESTABLISH- MENT AT GREMAZ (AIN), FRANCE. By C. RAVERET-WATTELL. About four years ago I had the honor to call the atten- tion of the National Acclimatization Society to a pisci- cultural establishment which had been founded in the Department of Ain, at Gremaz, in the township of Thoiry, for raising trout as an industry. I pointed out the special interest which, in my opinion, this establish- ment seemed to possess, as its founders, Messrs. Lugrin and du Roveray, have succeeded in solving a problem of considerable importance from an industrial point of view, viz., to furnish the young fish with food solely composed of living prey proportioned to its size. It was exceedingly important to find some natural food 46 for the young fish, and since Messrs, Lugrin and du Roveray have demonstrated the great usefulness of the Daphnia in this respect, several pisciculturists have looked for some practical means of providing a sufficient quan- tity of these small crustaceans, Attempts to multiply them rapidly in ditehes filled with slightly muddy water suceceded; but this method presents serious inconveni- ences, According to Mr, Chabot-Iarlen, the Daphnia gathered in these ditches are extremely tender; the least agitation kills vast quantities; the greatest precautions are therefore required to gather them ; and, moreover, these small crustaceans impregnated with muddy water must be carefully washed in clear water, in order not to become actual poision for the young lish, The method employed in the Gremaz establishment is by far preferable. As [ have stated in my pre- vious report (Bulletin de la Societe d’Acclimatation, November, 1882), the Daphnia are raised in the very basins which are destined for the fish, When a basin has been sufheiently prepared for the development of these small crustaceans, they are allowed about a month’s time to increase ; then the fish are put in the basin, where they at onee find abundant and substantial food, Whilst this stock of food is being consumed, other provision is made, A neighboring basin is prepared like the first ; ae itis abundantly stocked with Daphnia, After another month has passed, the fish—-which by that time have consumed nearly all the food in the first’ basin—are put in the second, where they again find ample food. A month later they are again put in the first basin, which meanwhile has again become stocked with Daphnia, and so on, Phis method is extremely simple and convenient, Messrs, Lugrin and du Roveray, however, do not confine their efforts to raising Daphnia, but they likewise use larvee of insects, and especially small freshwater shrimps, which, as we shall see, form an exceedingly abundant article of food, particularly in winter, 47 When, in the year 1442, | visited the Gremaz estab- lishment for the first time, I was positively astounded at the quantity of Daphnia in the basin, forming dense pte in the water, But that was the beginning of October, after a long period of fine and warm weather, during which these small crustaceans had had a chance to multiply at an enormous rate, 1 was, therefore, curious to return to the establishment to see how matters stood during the bad season, Vrom this point of view no better moment could have been selected for my visit, Without being exceptionally severe, the winter in this region has been somewhat prolonged, Shortly before my arrival the thermometor had fallen to 13 degrees below zero, On the day of my visit it was still 4 degrees below zero, and the basins, which had a feeble current of wate r, were covere dd with ice, The ice had been broken in several places, and we could, consequently, examine the water underneath, J must say that the Daphnia appeared to me to be just as numerous as during the fine season, which, however, is easily explained in water a8 cold as that in these basins; but when we dipped out some of the water from the bottom of the basing, with a sort of canvas pursenet, we brought up incredi- ble quantities of larva of the Chironoma and still more larve of the ephemera, The whole bottom of the basins seemed to be one mass of animal life, At every haul we got a big dish full of these larva, which are an exceed- ingly valuable article of food for the young fish, The water which is artificially prepared for the Daphnia is, therefore, likewise well suited for the developement of other small aquatic animals which can be utilized as food for young fish, . But Messrs, Lugrin and du Roveray are not contented with this source of food, Alongside of the basin there are small rivulets artificially made for raising small fresh. water shrimps (Gammarus pulex) which, by a method similar to the one employed for the Daphnia, are caused 48 to multiply in enormous numbers. In these rivulets, filled with water cresses and other aquatic plants, the little shrimps, which form so important a part of the food of the trout, are raised. Every day the daily rations allowed to the fish is gathered with nets in a few minutes; and it is a curious spectacle to see this food given to the fish. The young trout come from all directions in dense masses. They vigorously attack the little shrimps and do not allow asingle one to get to the bottom of the water. No matter how large the quantity of shrimps it vanishes in a few moments. The young fish of Messrs. Lugrin and du Roveray thrive admirably on this diet. Three basins, each having a sur- face of about 120 meters, contained about 70,000 fish of this year’s raising, grouped according to size, and all in excellent condition. From their well developed stomach and their finely rounded forms, it will be seen that these fish have not only never suffered hunger, but that they have always had abundant food of excellent quality. This kind of food, composed exclusively of insects and small crustaceans, is exceedingly suitable for these young fish on account of the large quantity of phosphate of lime which it contains; (1) and this circumstance explains the rapid growth, and the -exceptionally fine and vigorous condition of the young trout raised at Gremaz. It may be well to add that the profitable use made of the small shrimp streams will soon give way to a still simpler method of utilizing these small crustaceans, by proceeding in exactly the same manner with Daphnia, z.e., the fish will be successively, or rather alternately, passed from one basin to the other, to consume a stock <= ————— “= — (1.) It is well known that the substance which forms the skeleton of insects and crustaceans is, with many species, largely composed of calcareous matter, and is exceedingly rich in phosphate of lime. It is probable that to this circumstance must be attributed the result of Stoddard’s experiments: ‘‘ Three lots of young trout were placed under absolutely identical conditions ; one lot was fed on fish, the second on Annelida and mollusks, and the third exclusively on insects. Al the fish of the Jast-mentioned lot developed much quicker than those of the others.” In England insects are also considered excellent food for young trout. 49 of food previously prepared for them. By experiments Mr, Lugrin has ascertained that a basin 35 meters (114.8 feet) long, and 3 meters (9.84 feet) broad, with an aver- age depth of water of 40 centimeters (1.3 feet); (2) may contain 20,000 young fish from eight to twelve months old, or 3,000 two-year old trout, having an average weight of 250 grams (3 or a little more than % pound). These 20,000 young fish or 3,000 trout, consume about 10 kilograms (about 22 pounds) of small shrimps per day ; (3) or 300 kilograms (about 660 pounds) per month. It has been proved by experiment that a basin having the above-mentioned dimensions can produce 300 to 350 kilograms (660 to 770 pounds) of shrimps, without at all interfering with the Daphnia, Nais, Limnea, insect lar- vee etc., which simultaneously develop in the same basin. Under these conditions food will never be lacking. It is sufficient to have two basins for each lot of fish, so as to transfer then each month from one basin to the other. The system employed at Gremaz is, therefore, exceed- ingly profitable from an industrial point of view. But it is specially destined to render excellent service in stock- ing rivers with fish. Doing away with all the difficulty as regards food, it makes it possible and even economical to keep young fish, intended for stocking rivers, for a certain time in the basin free from all danger. Those young fish, which, owing to the lack of suitable and suff- ciently cheap food, had to be set out in the rivers at a very early age, before they had had time to gain strength, may now be safely left in the basins till they have grown stronger. When several months old the young fish is already vigorous; it knows how to flee from danger ; it is, therefore, better able than younger fish to escape num- erous accidents and causes of destruction. Rivers, there- (2.) These are the dimensions adopted for the new basins of, the Gremaz estab- lishment, the projected enlargement of which contemplates the creation of 136 such basins, (3.) Ten kilograms (22 pounds), dry measure, of small shrimps represents about 7 litres (about 12 pints of liquid measure. 50 fore, may be stocked with much greater prospect of suc- cess; and it may safely be asserted that 3,000 or 4,000 young fish, ten to twelve months old, are infinitely more valuable for stocking a river than 10,000 or 15,000 very young fish, which, not being strong enough to bear the change from the basin to the river, often perish in large numbers when placed in the river, where they become an easy prey to older fish living in the same waters. _ This opinion is at this day shared by the vast majority - of pisciculturists in Great Britian. Nearly everywhere in England and Scotland it is considered that the best young trout for stocking rivers are those which are about a year old, and which for this reason are called “yearlings” (4). These young fish are strong enough to seek their food and consequently to avoid the principal cause of mortal- ity in young fish, viz., inanition ; they can easily be trans- ported and will bear a change of water without difficulty. These young fish cost, it is true, considerably more than others, but as the final expense is much less, and the result is more prompt and certain, there is an absolute advantage in using them for stocking rivers. There is only one point in the system which leaves something to be desired. If one operates on that large scale which is required for stocking an entire river, it envolves considerable labor to insure the feeding of the young fish with artificial food. As the animal is, so to speak, made during its early age, and as during this period its assimilating organs acquire their strength and their power of absorption, a young fish which is insuffi- ciently fed not only grows very slowly, but will never become a fine fish. It has been ascertained long since that if, of young fish of one and the same hatching, one (4.) This ae is really applied to fish which are in many cases from ten to four- teen months old. - Practically speaking, the age of a fish is counted from the date when it begins to eat, and not from the date when it was born. Thus, a trout of 1887 is a fish which commenced eating in February or March, 1887. although it may possibly have been born about the end of the year 1886, and not in the begin- ning of 1887. e 51 portion is immediately placed in the river, whilst the other portion is kept in basins and fed with extreme care, the first will, after a short while, be twice as large as the second, because they have food which is better adapted to their needs; only, the loses among those which. have been kept in basins will not be as large (unless the cir- cumstances are particularly unfavorable), whilst the ranks of those which have been placed in the river have often been thinned to such an extent as to leave hardly any. They have fallen a prey to water rats, perch, pike, and even older trout. Thanks to the system of raising employed by Messrs. Lugrin and du Roveray. all these inconveniences dis- appear; kept in basins, protected against all danger, the young fish, abundantly fed on live food, develop as well if not better than under natural conditions without involv- ing any serious expense for their food; and when the suitable moment has arrived, they can easily be trans- ferred to the waters for which they are intended, without running the risk of losing many. It is therefore greatly to be desired that the Adminis- tration should abandon the use of very young fish for stocking rivers (as they are nearly all doomed soon after they have been placed in the river), and give the prefer- ence to fish ten or twelve months old, which, as is stated above, have yielded the most satisfactory results in Eng- land and Scotland. Messrs. Lugrin and du Roveray, convinced of the advantages of their system, propose, at their own expense, to stock a water course which, being subjected to special supervision, will enable them to make an absolutely con- vincing experiment. (Bulletin of the U. S. Fish Commission, 1887, p. 211.) REPORT ON THE PISCICULTURAL ESTABLISHMENT OF PIEDRA, ARAGON, SPAIN. By F. MuntTaADAS. All persons who devote themselves to practical pisci- culture will remember the change of opinion which took place some years ago, owing to the weakness of many persons whose experiments proved failures. Our Accli- matization Society, however, has never allowed itself to be influenced by the ‘‘piscicultural malaria;” it has always stood firm and preserved its faith in the future ; it well understood that the discovery of two fishermen of the Vosges Mountains could not become merely a subject of curiosity or pleasure. It is true that a large number of amateurs have taken a wrong road, but many others have followed the right road, and have made marked progress in the successful method of raising salmon. From the moment that the question of raising large quantities of young fry and young trout was agitated, it became necessary to pay attention to many different cir- cumstances, and not to forget the cost of raising fish; for the problem is to derive some profit from the new indus- try, and, according to Mr. Larbaletrier’s expression, “to make money by pisciculture, and not pisciculture by money,” All the methods of artificial feeding are expensive, and, what is worse, do not entirely answer the purpose; it therefore became necessary to find and use natural elements. In short, it became necessary to give the young trout what it needed. I had read in the “ Treatise on Pisciculture,” by our late co-laborer, Mr. Carbonnier, that in places where the freshwater shrimp (Gammarus pulex) is produced, the 53 raising of salmonoids was easy. I ransacked my waters for these precious crustaceans, and, having found them in considerable quantities in the sources and along the course of the Devil Rock Brook (Pena del Diablo), I went to work and had my first rearing-basin constructed. It was a complete success, and I had the honor to report it to the Acclimatization Society, which rewarded me by one of its medals. My young fish swallowed the little shrimps with the greatest delight, and seemed to care very little for the coagulated blood which was given to them in accordance with the instructions of the majority of treatises on pisciculture. Ever since my first season I have used nothing but small shrimps for feeding my young trout, which grew amazingly fast. This method was followed during the first eight months, Later they found in the large basins (besides myriads of small shrimps) tadpoles, gudgeons, and craw-fish, of which they are very fond, especially during the shedding period of these crustaceans. In a special compartment I tried chopped meat (mutton, rab- bit, etc.), but when I found that the carnivorous trout did not develop any quicker than the ichthyophagous ones, I fed them all on fish and crustaceans. The enemies of the young fish (water snakes, water ousels, water rats, etc.,) committed great ravages in my open-air basins; and with a view to prevent these rava- ges, I had a basin constructed of cut stones 10 meters (32.8 feet) long, 1 meter (3.28 feet) broad, and 50 cen- timeters (1.64 feet) deep. The whole was covered by a small house with windows protected by gratings and a very close network of wire both down and up the stream. The experiment had a two-fold interest, viz.: On the one hand to keep away the enemies of the young fish, and on the other to prove the success of my method of feeding the young fish after the umbilical sac had been absorbed. This twofold object was attained, and I am able to state 54 that not only was the loss smaller, but the young fish kept in this basin developed more rapidly than the others. When, in September, I transferred the young trout to more extensive waters, those which had come from the stone basin gained on the others in every respect. In places where there is clear and cool water contain- ing some lime, and where the freshwater shrimp repro- duces naturally, I have discovered the best method of raising salmonoids. It therefore gave me great pleasure to read that at the Gremaz establishment Messrs. Lugrin and du Roveray had succeeded in solving the problem of raising young fish by the same means which I had em- ployed here, and which I had described in the report which I had the honor to submit to the Acclimatization Society in July, 1872. The closer we follow nature, the more certain we are of success. It may give an artificial pleasure to see a few young fish in a hatching-basin and to watch the absorption of the umbilical bag; some of them may even. be kept for some time on more or less expensive arti- ficial food; but when it comes to pisciculture on a large scale, when the object in view is to stock large sheets of water, these means are insufficient. I well remember a long conversation I had with Car- bonnier. He told me in a firm and convincing manner that, as I had on my property at Piedra a watercourse, which was always cool and limpid, and which had a con- siderable fall, I should abandon the Coste and all similar apparatus, and use the Jacobi box, placing it to half its height in the water (natural method), and, as‘I had large quantities of small shrimps, to give my fish small shrimps (natural food), and not think of any other food. I fol- lowed his advice, and my season of 1871-72 was so remarkable that the Acclimatization Society rewarded me with the large gold medal at the public session of April, 1873. | 5d From 1872 to 1874 I lived in France—two years lost to my pisciculture. On my return I had to begin over again; but as I felt sure of my method, I again set to work, and my establishment soon reached the high state of perfection which it had occupied prior to my visit to France. The stone basin (mentioned already in my report for July, 1872) proved a great success. It produces on an average of 1,200 trout every year, and the open-air basins contain young fish by the thousand, more or less, accord- ing to the zeal and the efforts of the various fishermen in whose charge they are. The food is always the same during the first two months, small shrimps assorted, fur- nished two or three times a day; later, small shrimps such as are gathered with small purse-net attached to the end of a stick, at the sources of brooks, and in the large basins; for these crustaceans multiply wherever the water of the Devil Rock Brook is found. Although trout placed in rivers consume an enormous quantity of these small shrimps, a great many remain attached to cresses and other aquatic plants. The posi- tively prodigious quantity of small shrimps in the lake, the sources of the brook, and the large basins has so far not allowed me to think of raising these crustaceans in the rivers, and saves the trouble of transferring the trout alternately from an exhausted river toone still containing many of these small shrimps. Our young fish remain in one place from March to September, and they are fed two or three times a day, as their needs seem to require it; and it is a curious spec- tacle to see them in dense masses pursuing their living prey. The quantity of small shrimps given to the fish two or three times daily weighs 5 kilograms (about 11 pounds). Having carefully counted the number of shrimps contained in 5 grams (about ¢ ounce), and found this number to be 672, the total quantity of shrimps fed to the fish in a single day is not less than 672,000, or 4,704,000 per week. 56 The importance of the fact that this food is furnished free of cost will easily be understood; and the circum- stance that it is quickly distributed all over the basin renders it certain that all the young fish will get their share of food. One-third of the food is served to the trout in the stone basin, where the trout of the season of 1886 may now be seen. Such is the result of confining the fish for sixteen months. No sun, no vegetation, no hiding places, no quiet retreats along the banks; and in spite of these conditions, which a theorist would consider disadvantageous, these trout measure 18 to 22 centimeters (73 to 8% inches) in length. And to what is this owing? Simply to the abundance of food and the impossibility of finding hiding places. The crustaceans are devoured as soon as they are put in the basin, as there is no place where they could hide. It would be hard to find yearling wild trout as strong and fat as those which have been confined in the basins ever since the umbilical bag has been con- sumed. Since the month of October last, the piscicultural establishment at Piedra has been rented by the Govern- ment. At this time there may be seen at the raising- basin thousands of this year’s trout which have already reached an average length of 7 centimeters (2$ inches). These basins swarm with crustaceans, and nevertheless the three daily rations are never omitted. If one asks the fishermen as to the harvest of small shrimps, they invariably answer: “The more we take, the more there seems to be.” If the Government will construct inclosed basins on the existing model, it might try to acclimatize exotic species without fear of hybridization, which is an import- ant point. Mr. Raveret-Wattel points out the way to re-stock the rivers not only with young fish, but also with trout eight, ten and fourteen months old, as is done in Scotland with 57 those called yearlings. I entirely agree with Mr. Rave- ret-Wattel and the Scotch pisciculturists. If there is ‘war, soldiers should be sent out, not babies; it is not the number which assures success, but the age and valor of the soldiers. Leaving this figure, which, however, shows the reason for employing yearlings, I venture to assert that if thissystem gains ground, the old system of stock- ing rivers should also be abandoned at Piedra, and the new system introduced. There will be no lack of food for the yearlings, for in digging out new ponds fed by the Devil Rock Brook it will be found that after two months they will be filled with cresses and other aquatic plants; and underneath these plants large numbers of -small shrimps will be found, as has been the case in all ponds which have been dug, where many millions of these small crustaceans are caught every year. In some places where the water freezes, the reproduc- ‘tion of the crustaceans is possibly suspended for some time. I cannot state this with absolute certainty, for I have not had occasion to make the necessary observa- ‘tions; but it seems to me that ice would not favor repro- ‘duction. In the lake and in the Devil Rock Brook the temperature, even during the severest winter weather, never falls below fifty degrees. This is really a spring temperature and I have with my own eyes seen small ‘shrimps reproducing in winter as well as during the other ‘seasons of the year. I doubt whether there is any other place as highly favored by nature for raising salmonoids, and also cyprinoids (tench, barbel) and crawfish. Where the small shrimp is not found and the water ‘contains particles of lime, attempts should be made to introduce it and favor its reproduction. (Bulletin of the U. S. Fish Commission, 1887, p. 203.) SELF-REPRODUCING FOOD FOR YOUNG FISH. By Frank H. Mason, Consul. -Every person who has been interested in the artificial propagation of fish, and particularly trout and the sev- eral other species belonging to the genus Salmo, knows what care and labor are necessary to carry the young fry through the period immediately following the absorption of the umbilical sac, and to bring them to such a stage of maturity that they can be safely turned loose in open ponds or streams to shift for themselves. The mere hatching of the eggs involves no difficulty, and, under fair conditions, is ordinarily so successful as to make the propagation of fish in almost any quantity an apparently easy matter. But with the commencement of artificial nutrition the serious part of the task begins, and it is. usually a small percentage of the swarms which are hatched that reach the maturity of yearlings, at which period the dangers of infancy are past. During the intervening months it has been customary to feed the: young alewives on curdled milk, coagulated blood, finely-- hashed meat and liver, grated yolk of eggs, macerated brains of animals, etc., the preparation of which, and the frequent feeding of the dainty little creatures, involves. constant and more or less costly labor. Moreover, none of these forms of nutriment have been found entirely satisfactory, for the reason that they are all distinctly artificial and different from the living, organic food. which nature provides for those species of fish during their tender, infantile period. The difficulty of provid- ing proper nutriment results often in turning out the young fry into open water too early, when the tem- perature of the stream or pond is so much below that. 59 of the tanks in which they have been hatched that they perish by thousands from chill and inanition, with- out making an effort to find natural food in their new element. Accordingly the problem has been to devise a natural, self-reproducing food, so easy and certain in preparation that it may be cheaply and abundantly provided, and thus facilitate the maintenance of the alewives during the first ten or twelve months of their existence, by the end of which time they should be so strong and active that a large majority may be relied upon to survive the struggle for life in larger waters. The result seems to have been fully attained by a discovery made several years ago by Mr. F. Lugrin of Geneva, and practiced since 1884 in the piscicultural establishment at Gremaz, in the Department of Ain, in eastern France. As this process has been examined and approved by eminent experts, sent especially for this purpose by piscicultural societies of England and other countries, it is thought that some account of it may be of interest to .the large and rapidly growing class of fishculturists in the United States. Mr. Lugrin was for many years a practical fisher- man on Lake Geneva. He noted the steady diminu- tion of the more important species of fish in the lake, and sought to ascertain the cause He gradually reached the conclusion that the germ of the trouble lay in the growing scarcity of minute crustacea and larve which are the natural food of the trout and other fish, espe- cially during their first months of nutrition. After elaborate experiments, he hit upon a system by which Daphnia, Cyclops, freshwater shrimps (Gam- marus pulex), etc., could be bred in countless myriads at merely nominal cost. The hatching and rearing of a generation of these minute creatures is the work of from twelve to fifteen days, and as the process may be repeated—or rather repeats itself—again and again in the same water, the problem would seem to be solved. 60 Whoever has watched from a place of concealment the trout feeding in an American stream has admired the adroitness with which they work down stream, raising with their noses the up-stream end of flat stones until the current, catching underneath, aids the clever little forager to turn over the stone and expose the minute larvee and crustacea on which he so voraciously feeds. It is the purpose of the process now under consideration to raise by artificial means these same species of organisms, and in such quantities that the young fry may not only be abundantly fed in tanks or small inclosed ponds, but ample supplies provided for enriching larger streams and ponds where, for some reason, the natural supply may be insufficient. The apparatus is simple, and visitors properly intro- duced have no difficulty in seeing the entire establishment at Gremaz, which occupies a gently sloping piece of ground, about six acres in extent and watered by three springs, which yield collectively about 500 gallons of water per minute. The tanks are rectangular excava- tions, about 120 feet long by 12 in width, with a depth of 5 feet. The ground being of a gravelly character it was neccessary to line the walls and bottom of some of the tanks with cement in order to retain the water, but in close clayey earth this would be needless, and the natural dirt bottom, if not to muddy, would be preferable to cement. The tanks have the same general level and are divided by sliding gates of wire gauze sufficiently fine to prevent the passage of the fry. Thus far all is simple and obvious. The process of Mr. Lugrin. which has been patented in several countries, consists in spreading upon the bottom of these tanks a material inpregnated with the elements necessary to produce spontaneously a limitless number of Daphnia, Cyclops, Limnea, as well as fresh-water shrimps, and the larvz of various Ephemera which form the natural aliment of trout, and other Sal- monide at all stages of their growth. Once constructed 61 and impregnated with this producing material—which is. of trifling cost—these tanks go on with their work auto- matically and indefinitely. The water from two to three feet in depth, being left undisturbed two or three weeks, is found peopled with swarming myriads of minute organisms of the species above named. Twenty thous- and trout a year old, or three thousand two years old— which last should average about one-half pound in weight—are considered sufficient for a pasture of that size, and the avidity with which they rush to occupy and ravage their new feeding-ground is a delight to the pisciculturist. If the propagation has been ordinarily, abundant these 20,000 young fry or 3,000 yearlings will subsist royally in a tank of the size indicated for an entire month, They will eat on an average 20 to 25 pounds of food per day, or 600 to 800 pounds per month. Careful experiment has demonstrated that each tank at Gremaz will produce 650 to 900 pounds of Crevettes (fresh-water shrimps), to say nothing of the myriads of Daphnia, Cyc- lops, and other species produced in the same water at the same time. When, at the close of the month, the tank has become depleted, the gate is opened and the fish driven like a flock of sheep to new and similar pasture. The first tank, being closed and left in quiet, immediately begins the process of reproduction, and at the end of two or three weeks is swarming again with the varied minute organic life which far surpasses in value, as food for fish, anything that has been yet devised by man. Thus the simple, inexpensive process goes on from year to year, the fish always heaithy and vigorous and larger at two years old than those artificially fed are at the age of three years. Yearlings bred in this way are strong and capable of making their way in any open stream or pond sup- plied with food and suitable for their existence. One thousand of such yearlings have been found more effec- tive in stocking a depleted trout stream than fifty thou sand young fry turned in, as has been so often done 62 heretofore, in order to get rid of them at the tender age when artificial feeding first becomes not only a necessary but difficult and troublesome. For these tender nurs- lings all open water, particularly when inhabited by older trout or other voracious species, are beset with a thou- sand dangers which the vigorous yearling is able to escape. It is evident from all this that the system practiced at Gremaz is equally applicable to the industrial raising of trout and other fish for market. and to the restocking of streams and ponds for purposes of sport. In the first case it is only necessary to provide a series of tanks or small ponds from one to another of which the fish can be changed monthly, as herein before described, until they reach a marketable size; and it is to be remarked that trout raised by this method have the natural firmness and flavor of wild fish; and not the flabby degenerate char- acter of those which have been fed on liver, offal, and other unnatural, degrading food. Once prepared, a tank or pond is permanently productive. However voracious the young fish may be, they leave the bottom of the water still peopled with myriads of parent organisms which reproduce so rapidly that, before the end of a month, the placid water becomes clouded with swarming millions of their progeny. The fecal matter dropped by the fish during their month of occupancy is sufficient to maintain the fertility of the bottom, and thus the system, once established, becomes automatic and self-sustaining. A single attendant can have the care of a large establishment, his only duty being to drive the fish periodically from one feeding ground to another and close the gate behind them, as a farmer changes his flocks from one pasture to another. It remains to be explained that while the Daphnia, Nais, Cyclops, and other extremely delicate species can be profusely grown only in still water, the fresh- water shrimp (Gammarus pulex) grows abundantly in living streams. At Gremaz rivulets are provided which 63 flow from the springs into the tanks and carry away the overflow. These rivulets, the bottoms of which have been impregnated by the Lugrin system, are filled with cresses and other water plants and produce the minute shrimps in such abundance that they are gath- ered daily in panfuls by a few sweeps of a gauze * scoop-net and fed to the fish in the swarming tanks. This part of the process is easily applicable to natural streams where a sufficiency of food does not already €Xxist. As to the applicability of this system to American pisciculture, there is apparently no room for doubt or question. The same natural conditions which exist at Gremaz can be found in nearly, if not quite, every State in the Union. The same food which is produced there may be used in growing nearly every species of fish which is artificially reared in the United States. American brook trout, the rainbow trout and Califor- nia salmon thrive admirably in the tanks at Gremaz. To conclude with the verdict of Prof. Francis Day, who, in October last, came specially from England to investigate and report upon the system which has been so successfully established there : “When I remark that a tank 35 meters (10 feet) long by 3 (10 inches) broad, and 4o centimeters (1 foot 4 inches) deep, and capable of containing 20,000 young trout can be fully stocked with food in fifteen days, so as to be able to sustain the residents for one month without any additional supply, I cannot help thinking that Mr. Lugrin has solved a difficult problem, and that his mode of cultivating the natural food of fishes will prove a great and lasting benefit to fishcultur- ists.” MarsEIL_LeEs, February 25, 1888. 64 The following discussion then ensued: Mr. May—I want to call attention to the fact that this paper that was published by the United States Fish Commission, is largely theory. The man who says that from one cubic foot of water he can raise enough of the daphnia and crustaceans to feed a thousand trout, I should like very much to see him do it. As for sweep-* ing a light net over watercress and getting enough to feed, it may do very well for the man who raises a thou- sand or two, as most fishculturists in Europe do; but if I should ask for ten pounds a day! Angle worms are no doubt good food, but how am I going to get them? If I want twenty pounds of little crustaceans, the little water flea, (the daphnia) and others,where will I get them? Or to collect twenty pounds of snails a day! it would cost more than anything I know of. The food question, as I have said before. is a vital one in fishculture. Most places can get cheaper food than we get, right near New York City, where there is a population that eats most everything eatable. In a paper which I will read by-and- by, I show that we have tried beef liver, which is very expensive here; we cannot get the hazlets of sheep, as they are called, because there is a large poor population here that buy them up. But I would like to see some practical man come forward and say that he has raised ten thousand trout and found enough of this natural food. by sweeping a mosquito net over some watercress or something of that kind, and get ten or fifteen pounds of it during the day. [ am an unbeliever in it, as you will probably see by this time. Mr. Farrsanks of Illinois—I did not come here with any idea of saying anything on this subject, but these papers have interested me very much indeed, and have been right in the line of what I am doing. The remarks of Mr. Mather I regard rather as a chal- lenge. I have at Lake Geneva, Wis., some trout ponds which I commenced there about fifteen years ago. I 65 began in the usual way of making ponds, and raised a good many trout by feeding curds, etc., as is usual. I am fortunately located on the side of a hill, which is all springs : dig anywhere almost, and you find a large spring ; and I conceived the idea of making some natural ponds, and I have now some twenty-five ponds, varying in size from one hundred to three hundred feet in length and fifty to seventy-five feet in width. Some of them are smaller; some round, a hundred feet in diameter, perhaps. Scoop up an earth bank at the lower side, and let the spring come up and fill it. Some of them the weeds grow up in them naturally. Others, I take the weeds out of the little stream or outlet—I don’t know the name of the weed, it is not the watercress that the freshwater shrimp inhabit ; there is a little, low, close freshwater weed that fills the pond full almost, I take it out of places where it is already growing and put it inother ponds. That weed is alive with the freshwater shrimp, in its natural condi- tion. I took out quantities of it and put it in these ponds, and they have filled up with it. I do not touch them or clean them out, but let it grow. I raise all my fry without a particle of food, until they are yearlings. [ put in a pond 50,000 good healthy fry. I never touch them, never feed them, never look at them until they are yearlings. Some of them grow to six inches. This is a pronounced success, and a practical one; one which I am doing year after year. Mr. Hoxrte—I would like to ask what proportion of those little fry grow up to yearlings. If you put in 50,000 fry, how manv yearlings do you get? Mr. FarrspanKs—lI do not know that I can arrive at that. It is pretty hard work to count fish of that size. But all that I want. I should say fifty per cent. of them, as a guess; fully as many as that. Fully as many as I ever grow by feeding artificially; in fact more. After they arrive at yearlings I transplantthem. But certainly you can raise in a natural pond by growing the weeds 66 and everything accumulating in there, and the natural food growing there, you can raise enough to take care of your yearlings without any trouble whatever, and that is the most important time. ‘That is the time I fully agree with the paper in relation totransplanting. But I would not put out in any stream fry; I should raise them in these natural ponds until they are yearlings and then transplant them. The question has bothered me a good deal. I have thought much about it, about trying to propagate enough in other ponds to feed the fish after they get older, and of course I have been interested in those papers which have referred to that. I have my doubts, however, of doing that upon a sufficient scale to feed larger fish. The fish are very voracious and need a great deal of food. But the fact that you can take care of the young fish, is of itself a very important question in trout culture, Make more ponds; plant the weeds and the stuff in them; put in the freshwater shrimp and the other crusta- cea, that will grow according to the location and the section. You can raise food for the young fish without any trouble whatever, and get your fish up to yearlings and then transplant them. I have also experimented on raising other fish than trout ; and some three or four years ago I gave the result of my experience in Lake Geneva in putting in the sal- mon trout. We have expended a great deal of money in Western States, in Wisconsin, Illinois, Iowa. The Fish Commissioners were very enthusiastic in the matter of taking the spawn of the salmon trout from the great lakes and hatching them and putting them into the smaller lakes with which those States abound. But I think it has been a failure all through. I made the experiment in Lake Geneva, which was a lake particu- larly adapted. It is of a character like the, lakes of this State—Hemlock Lake, Cayuga Lake and those other lakes. A deep water lake, 150 feet deep, perfectly pure. 67 They have in them (the sysco) the natural food of the sal- mon trout, in its mature condition. And I thought it was particularly adapted to the raising of the lake trout. I pursued it for five years; putting in about half a mill- ion every year, of healthy young fry; hatched them, raised them, brought them up, and then dumped them into the lake. And I never have seen any sign of the salmon trout in that lake of any size. Not even the fry that I put in, or fish of six or eight inches or a foot long, or any size; never any sign. And the reason of it, I fol- lowed it out after a while, to my notion, it was entirely the lack of food for the young fish—for the fry. In the great lakes, in all these New York lakes, where the sal- mon trout is indigenous, where they have increased them by stocking, there are ledges of rocks, or reefs, about which the fish spawn. About those rocks is some small animal life, which I have never investigated to see what it is, but it is evidently something on which the young fish live until they are large enough to eat other fish. In this Lake Geneva there are no ledges, no rocks, and consequently no food for the young. Evidently every one of the young fry put in there simply starved to death. Demonstrating that it is absolutely useless to put fish into waters where they are not indigenous, unless you supply the food. That is the point on which the money should be expended in fishculture in my opinion. First find out if you can furnish the food for the young fish— and the mature fish too, for that matter, But until you can do that, do not waste any money on hatching, rais- ing and distributing fry. Dr. KEary—The trout that you experimented with is the common brook trout ? Mr. Fairsanks—Yes. One other idea. The gentle- man said that he noticed there was abundance of fresh- water shrimp in all trout streams. That is true. That is what the fish are there for, to eat those shrimps. But there are just as many good streams for growing trout 68 where there is no food, but which can be put there arti- ficially ; and plenty of springs and streams where there is. no food but which can be cultivated there; for every- thing has been cleaned out, in cleaning up the landscape,. and the grounds the streams have been cleaned out; they are all cleaned, there is nothing left in them. But you don’t want to pay much attention to the appearance of the stream; if it is choked up and full of weeds, all the better; let them grow, then the trout will grow. You can make hundreds of trout streams where you haven't any now and where you haven't any trout because there is no food. Mr. Matuer—I fear I did not make myself exactly clear on this question. I agree with Mr. Fairbanks on this natural food business to a certain extent. But in his ponds, he cannot put in more than a certain number than that will support. At the station of the New York Fish Commission which is in my charge at Cold Spring Harbor, I have one reservoir away up the hill, where we grow watercress, and the water flows down into another one which supplies the hatchery. This lower one is between three and four hundred feet long and from thirty to fifty feet wide. We have put in as high as. 15,000 fry there and we have put in as low as 8,000, every year; and the highest we have ever taken out of it I think was 5,000. In the fall we usually draw it down, in September, and get out everything that we can, and we have from one to five thousand trout that are grown upon natural food which has not cost usa cent. But if we should attempt in that water to carry it on ona larger scale, and put a 100,000 fry in there, it is a ques- tion whether we would take out any or not. | Mr. FarrsAnKS—In this lower pond is there water- cress? Mr. MatTHER—No, not much. There is no cress in it, but there are other plants, and it is full of natural food; but we get a few fish that have not cost us any- ——— 69 thing there. Now, if we should undertake to force it, we probably would not get as good results. But I am speaking not of the little fish places in Europe, where they turn out 5,000 in the course of the year and think they are doing well. Suppose you want to turn out a half million a year. It is going to facili- tate you to get food for those fish when you want it by the pound, or ten, or twenty, or fifty pounds of natural food. I don’t know how to get it, and I don’t think that any man does. Mr. GriLtBErtT—I would like to say while we are on this subject, that where the food of trout can be pur- chased for a cent a pound, it is hardly worth while for a man to spend the time, or even employ labor to get the natural food. It will cost more than it will to buy it. Mr. Farrsanks—Natural food makes a great deal better fish. Mr. Gi_BERtT—That is a question on which there are many differences of opinion. We had a legislative committee down to my place and we gave them a trout dinner, and they were all artificially fed trout. One of the gentlemen of the committee afterwards was pre- sented with some natural fed trout. He said a few days afterwards that he preferred artificially fed trout. So there is a variety of opinions about that. But in regard to food, I am feeding now about a thousand pounds of trout a week, my young fry of last season’s hatching.. We begin to feed in April, about fifty pounds of liver a day. To get natural food to supply that demand would cost a great deal more. Mr. CLAarK—You are feeding the fry ? Mr. GILBERT—Yes, the young fry. Mr. CLark—That is, year old? Mr. GitpertT—No, the young fry of last winter's hatching. Mr. CLarK—A year old last spring ? 70 Mr. GiLpERT—No; an inch and a half long; fry hatched in February. Mr. CLtarK—How many have you? Mr. GitspeErt—About half a million. So in order to raise more, you will require too much natural food; I don’t think it could be secured by any natural means. Mr. FarrsAanKs—You can do it with fifteen or twenty natural ponds, if you have got the space for them, one hundred feet in diameter. You can run your water from one pond to the other. Mr. Gitpert—A man has not the facilities. Mr. FarrsanKs—I was going to suggest to Mr. Mather, he has one pond there and runs the water from that into another. If you have got the room to make half a dozen of these ponds you can raise just so much more fish in them. And your natural food will take care of the fry until they are a year old, probably. Mr. Hoxie—In regard to the quality of the fish, whether fed on liver or natural food. I will just tell you a story. We raise artificial trout and we have also brook or wild trout. I have been in the habit every spring of sending to a friend a box of trout all cleaned and packed in ice, early in the spring, as early as April. Well, the gentleman wrote me that he had received the trout and they were very fine, but he did not think they were quite up to wild trout. Perhaps a couple of months afterwards. he and his son were up to my place fishing. I said: “Mr. Hazard, I have got a nice joke on you; those trout I sent you, I heard that you remarked they were not quite up to the brook trout, and I took particular pains. to go up to the little lake and bait my hook with worms in the old fashioned way, and catch those trout.” He was surprised, and said he was going to test it the first thing. He always gets a trout dinner when he comes up to my place; so he went to my pond, and got some wild trout and marked them by snicking the tail. Then he went to the other place and got some tame trout. Mrs. v1 ~Hoxie cooked them, and he set to work to test them. So his son covered his eyes and he took pieces of each, and he got the thing reversed right around, and declared that the tame trout was the finest trout he ever tasted! The artificial trout was the one he picked out for the wild trout. And he said that he would never say again that a man’s taste was keen enough to tell the differ- ence. Mr. PoweLtt—In regard to this question of food for fishes, being one of the Commissioners of the State, I represent and we get applications many times for five, or _ six, or eight cans of trout fry. The question is whether it is wise to give them so many, whether there is food enough for them. We get applications for five or ten cans where there is not enough for two. It is an inter- esting question which has been put to me before by cor- respondence from different parts of the country. I would like to have some persons who are more familiar with this question to express their views. Mr. FarrsanKs—Suggest that the applications give you some account of the stream they are going to put the fry in, and the food that is there. If they are inter- ested enough for five or ten cans they ought to be inter- ested enough to give such particulars. Mr. PoweLtt—tThe people are anxious to get as much as they can for nothifig. They use fictitious names for themselves and for the streams also. If we do not send what they ask for, we are abused day in and day out. Only last night I received a communication from the Senator of Lucerne County, in the State I represent, complaining that they do not get enough trout fry. Mr. FairsanKs—There ought to be an investigation to arrive at some sort of knowledge as to the character of the stream. It might be as well for the commission to spend half of their money in investigating the charac- ter of the streams. Mr. PoweLtt—The point was put before our legis- 02 lature. It was said that we ought to have enough power to know where these fishes go to. We are abused every day in the week, you might say, when the season comes around for these applications. They apply to the other commissioners and then to me, and all the fish go into one stream. As to the stream, the chances are there is not more than enough food in it to feed one can of trout ; and why should twenty go in it? Mr. Farrnsanks—They should not. It is a question for your commission to decide. Your commission can exact from the people who make the applications, a sworn statement, or a statement from some well known man in relation to the character of the stream, the length of it, size of it, and the sort of food there is in it. Mr. PowEeLt—I went to the highest authority of our State yesterday for an opinion before I came here. We have a large number of applicants who apply for trout: our blanks simply say ‘‘on a public stream,” and they declare they are public streams; and so soon as they get the fish, those streams become private streams, and nobody can fish in them. It is raising a very interesting question in our State. Mr. FarrsanKs—I would extend your series of ques- tions a little further to get information that would be valuable to your commission. Mr. REYNoLDs—I suggest that fhe commission should distribute some tracts to improve the morals of the peo- ple—not to lie about a fish until they get a fish. Mr. Gi_tsERT—I think the application should be accom- panied by a sworn statement that the fish are to go into public waters. A law should be passed to that effect. Mr WuitakER—I have been quite interested in some parts of the discussion that has just been raised. The points that have been raised are questions we all meet in our work. In our own state we have taken occasion to secure the best general results for our own work, by arming ourselves with facts in regard to the waters 03 of our.State. Since 1885 we have conducted each sum- mer a systematic examination of our inland waters, par- ticularly with reference to the lakes. Each lake is examined, its surroundings, temperature at bottom, the condition of the water with reference to. food, the inlets and outlets, and everything pertaining to that; many other things I cannot now remember. In addition to that, practical men are asked to recommend the fish to plant, such as they believe will exist and thrive. It has been of immense advantage tous. A rude map is drawn upon the back of the report, with the soundings noted upon it. They are bound in book form, and we have them for every year since we began. In addition to that, in a general way we familiarize ourselves with the streams of the State. So that we can tell with tolerable accuracy whether the fish that are applied for are likely to thrive and be heard from again. That eliminated, we have the same difficulties spoken of here, of people making statements in reference to the condition of their waters; whether they are open or private, that is upon every application. Wherever we find that those matters are falsified, in future so far as we can guard against it, those applications are refused. But in this way we have this advantage that we had not before we adopted a sys- tem. It is quite a common thing for a man who has a ‘water in which he takes a pride, to have it stocked with something, he does not know what, but he wants some- thing. We want to entertain a due regard for the suc- cess of our work, and after an examination of our reports that are filed away, if we find that the lake he applies for is filled with bass, he will apply for 50,000 brook trout to put in that lake, we will deny it, and we will say you are only putting the lamb inside the lion. We find that in this way the results of our work have been very much improved. We shall continue to follow this plan. And as it has been said here, of course there are times when we find people who make applications 74 through other private parties, apply themselves for the same streams. We determine all those things ourselves. When it comes to ‘the closing of planted streams, the only way to be done with that, is to take it to the Supreme Court of the State, because it is a conflict between the interests of the public who have planted those waters for the public to fish in, and private indi- viduals, and the courts will settle it. And I believe they will settle it in the line that if the public have enterprise enough to stock those waters for the public benefit, they are entitled to fish in them. Mr. JAmEs—I think all this goes to the point that in supplying fish you must supply food, and in such quanti- ties as will let these varieties of fish survive. Then comes in the matter of finance in connection with this: Will it pay to put in a certain variety of fish without sup- plying that food ? It is a bad financial policy. Those who are propagat- ing fish, who are using the food for fish for supplying the market, must necessarily go to such expense as will give these fish the requisite amount and the kind of food. But of course you have got to keep off the marauders, and only plant in such streams as will allow them to sur- vive. There must be some streams for black bass, and some streams for bass; certain lakes for certain fish. The whole question resolves itself down to a certain circle of life. We knowthat food after it has passed through and been discarded by animal life, goes back into vegetable life, again to be taken up. And this growth of vegetable life supplies food again for the minute animal life, until finally that circle is completed by the furnishing this. nitrogenic food for the plant. So we have a circle in this way. If we are going to propagate fish with any degree of success, we must maintain this circle of life. Those that have the supplying of these fish must ascer- tain what kind of food, in what quantities, must be placed in those streams or be in those streams, other- 75 wise it is useless, and you throw your fish away to die. Then you must remember that the quantities of food will increase with each year. You put the small fry in and they require very little animal food; but as they grow in size from three-quarters of a pound to two pounds and a half or more, the greater the demand for the food supply. Therefore that proportionately in- creases as you goon. The larger your fish, the greater the supply of food needed. The larger your fish are the better price you get for them in the market. So that the whole matter is a matter of circle in finance, in the propagating and feeding of the fish. Mr. Pace—There have been one or two points touched upon here, that I have some little information on which possibly may be of value. On this question of feeding the fish. Mr. Gilbert wants to know how much food it will take to feed 10,000 pounds of trout. It might be very easily inferred from Mr. Fairbanks’ state- ment that that would depend upon the amount of water, and the size of the pond. It happened last year at the station of the U. S. Fish Commission where I was, we raised something over nine thousand pounds of trout in a very small space of water : five ponds, eight by twenty feet, having fifty gallons water each per minute. Those fish measured from four to ten inches in length, 1 am safe in saying they were the largest trout of their age that have been raised in the United States. The food supply was very small, because the water was enormously rich in natural food, particu- larly in snails; and as you all perhaps know, snails will produce enormous quantities of eggs, and all trout are very fond of them; we allowed them to grow abundantly on those ponds and the snails propagated. The food given them was raw beef liver mixed with a mush made from ship stuff when the fry were very young; fed in the house five or six weeks on pure beef liver; then as they were put out in the pool in small quantities a little mush 76 was added to it until after they were five or six months old, the mush would be increased. I have gone over that cost very carefully, interest on the cost of the plant, labor and artificial food given them makes it well on to eight cents per pound of trout. To illustrate the advan- tage of that, Mr. Young Robinson, at Mammoth Spring, about two hundred miles from me, in Arkansas, is rais- ing trout and is fortunate in getting fifty cents a pound for them. I hope there are no dealers present to take advantage of that. He could well afford to sell those trout at twenty-five cents a pound. I venture to state that, because Mr. Seal asks in his paper as to what it would cost to raise trout. I know it costs very much more in some localities; for instance, my friend Mr. Mather cannot afford to buy beef liver. We use it now on some forty-five or fifty thousand trout fry, fifty pounds of liver a week and about fifty pounds or seventy-five pounds of shorts. Mr Martuer—I would like to ask Mr. Page one question: If he has made any inquiries what it would cost to raise a yearling trout; or what is his opinion ? Mr. Pace—We raise our yearling trout at about eight cents per pound and turned out a little over nine thousand pounds of fish last year, or trout. Average cost of attention, food, interest on the plant, etc., is about eight cents per pound. Mr CiarK—Mr. Mather did not ask me, he asked Mr. Page that question. [would say that a short paper that I have, will give those figures, exactly what it costs to raise a yearling fish. Dr. BRapLey—lI will ask for information: I am con- nected with a hatchery. We hatch about from five hundred to eight or nine hundred thousand a year. We have trout, brook trout, living in the same lake with bass, and they do not eat each other up; we catch brook trout and bass out of the same lake repeatedly. Mr. WHITAKER—We avoid planting black bass and cv trout in the same stream; we believe they would not thrive together, Also, there are so many streams that are well calculated for trout and are not encumbered with those difficulties that it does not seem worth while for us to attempt to run that risk. Another thing, the question of food is a question there is no sort of doubt about with reference to pond reared fish, it is worthy of consideration But in this country where nature has. provided so abundantly in most of our streams at high latitudes, it is hardly worth while to entertain the ques- tion of food. The caddisand the shrimp abound in those streams and lakes. Mr. BrapLEY—I simply wish to make the point that those fish live and breed in the same lake. Mr. QuackENBos—I agree with what Dr. Bradley says. On Seneca Lake, N. H., we have bass and trout together. But that is explainable on the ground that they are not in the same water at the same time, conse- quently they have both quantities of the natural food. Those are peculiar conditions to the water. The trout are in the deep, cool water and the bass are on the sur- face; and I never have found trout inside the bass. I think also the bass have destroyed the enemy of the trout, namely, the perch. Mr. Pace—My experience leads me to believe that the old bass eat the young trout, and the old trout eat. the young bass. REARING FISH FOR DISTRIBUTION. By FRANK N. CLARK. At the twentieth annual meeting of the American Fisheries Society held in Washington, D. C., in May, 1891, I read a short paper on the rearing and distribu- tion of trout from the Northville Station, giving the plan pursued, and some of the results attained. The members of the society present at that meeting will remember that the subject brought out quite a discussion concerning the practicability and feasibility of rearing fish for distribution. One of the arguments introduced against the work was the expense, some thinking the outlay would be so much greater than in the case of plant- ing fry; others that the trout accustomed to liver would not adapt themselves to other food. At that meeting I promised to give some figures and facts relating to the expense of rearing trout to the age of one year at the Northville Station. It must be borne in mind that the food used at this station for feeding fry is wholly beef’s liver, bought from the slaughter houses in Detroit and shipped by express to Northville. For the years 1890 and 1891 we reared and distributed 250,000 yearlings; about one-half of them being lake trout and requiring at least one-half more food than brook, Von Behr, or Loch Leven trout. The cost of the food for this lot of fish was $740.00, making the cost for food per 1,000 $2.95. The cost for labor based on actual time was $600.00, or $2.40 per 1000. In addition to this amount. there should be added about $3.00 per 1,000 for expressage, draying and superintendence, making a total cost, when ready for distribution, of $8.35 per 1,000, or less than one cent each for yearling fish, and with facilities for rearing four times as many the cost as to labor would be much less per 1,000. Not only is the arguments from figures, strongly in favor of yearling plantings, but those drawn from well- 79 known facts also speak with no uncertain sound; for instance: the condition of fry when planted is such that they must have food at once or they perish, while on the other hand the yearlings are in condition to go without food for a considerable length of time. Also one of the greatest losses suffered in planting fry is their being devoured by larger fish, which loss in planting yearlings we do not find as great. To test this difference, I placed 100 fry in a tank 8 feet long, 2 feet deep and 18 inches wide, containing twelve yearlings; in another tank of same dimensions, I placed twelve yearlings with six three-year old trout, this for the purpose of noting how soon each would disappear as prey. The fry were all all gone in six hours, while in the tank where yearlings were with the three-year olds, only two were gone the second day. Remember, please, that our argument rests upon actual experience and not theory. Another argument we have to meet is regarding the matter of distribution, and we can say, in distributing yearlings to-day, we have no more difficulty in transport- ing them than we do fry. In our distribution this last winter, by making fourteen trips with the car and carry- ing 80,000 trout from two and a half to seven inches long, there was an actual loss of 1,738, and of this loss 938 occurred on one trip in which some accident occur- red with the tanks, making a loss of about two per cent. This clearly answers the question as to transportation. Can the distributers of fry inform us of the actual num- ber planted or the actual number lust in transit ? The work of planting yearlings is no guesswork, as the fish are counted into the tanks when put aboard the cars and counted out when planted, the captain of the car receipting for the fish and then again having the ap- plicant receipt to him for the actual number planted. An objection urged against planting artificially fed fish is, that when turned into waters to be stocked, they are naturally looking for the food they are accustomed 80 to and will not readily take the live food that may be in the stream. Has any fishculturist ever cast the fly in a pond of large fish that have been fed artificially and been unable to get a rise, or has he thrown grasshoppers or in fact any live food of whatever nature but it would be readily taken ? If it could be proven—though it cannot—that natural food is indispensible to the rearing of yearlings for dis- tribution, then under circumstances that are favorable, the food for growing fish may be bred with as much care- as is used in breeding the fish, and undoubtedly with far less expense than in feeding liver. This, however, would naturally require a large area of ponds and a large supply of water. With the work of procuring eggs, laying them down in the hatchery and turning out the fry, we have long ago passed the experimental stage and have arrived at the practical side of the question with the salmonide. It only depends on the question of parent fish as to the number of fry to be hatched; neither does it require a scientist to do this branch of fishculture work, but a good, practical man. Therefore, with the rearing of trout to-day, the principal question that should occupy the minds of advanced fishculturists is: what should be used for food and how to procure it. Every observing and thoughtful fishculturist knows. that many of our inland lakes have been planted with hundreds of thousands of whitefish fry and only a very few have been stocked. If we raise the whitefish fry to. be one year old and plant them in these lakes, is it not possible and probable with the results before us, that we may be successful in stocking many more bodies of water than the fry work has accomplished? At any rate, is it not worth the trial? Experiment by practice is part of a fishculturist’s work. One of the proposed improvements at the Northville Station is that of constructing a rearing pond for white- 81 fish and furnishing them with natural food from the creek. And we have every promise of success in such an undertaking. In conclusion, I cannot refrain from expressing my deep solicitude concerning this question, for more is dependent upon the successful and increased planting of yearlings than even practical fishculturists think for. To my thinking, much of the future of fishculture is dependent upon it, and I trust that all present will enter heartily into, not only a discussion of the question, but also a practical testing of it. At its conclusion, Mr. Fairbanks said: What do you find the natural food of the young white fish to be? Mr. Cirarxk—I did not say I had found it. I think the food is in the water. I think the article of Professor Forbes enters into that subject more thorougly than I could. Heshows us what the natural food is. Mr. MatHer—What does your liver cost you at your hatchery ? Mr. CLark—Three cents a pound for beef liver. PLANTING FRY VS. PLANTING FINGERLINGS. By James NEvIN. Mr. President and Members of the Fisheries Soctety - For the past few years there has been considerable said by some prominent fishculturists, which has been taken up and discussed by the press against the planting of small fry in the streams; and that much better results will be secured if the fish are kept in the hatching house or reared in the ponds until they are some six or eight months old, and planted in much smaller numbers. There are several States in the Union which have been engaged in fishculture and planting fry long enough to know whether their work has been successful or not. I see by the Detroct Trzbune of the issue of April 82 27th, that Mr. Clark of the Northville Station; in an interview with the reporter, made the statement that he would rather have 100,000 fingerlings than 5,000,000 fry to plant in the public waters, as the 100,000 fingerlings will bring forth better results. If Mr. Clark’s statement approaches anywhere near the realms of accuracy or is approximately correct, | am forced to the conclusion that the States of New York, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin must have a lot of idiots in the form of fish commissioners, looking after their piscicultural interests, as the 100,000 fingerlings can be reared and distributed for about one-third of what it costs to run a hatchery that handles 5,000,000 brook trout fry. The several governors of these States ought to have their attention called to this matter so that they could overhaul the commissions of their respective States for allowing such wasteful extravagance in the use of the public money placed in their charge. I claim that we can stock a stream with fry if they are properly planted in the stream or some small rivulet tributary to it; and that there will more fish live and thrive in the wild stream than Mr. Clark or any other fish- culturist can raise in the hatching house. If you wish to make a success of planting fry you have got to take great care in planting, and get them well up to the head waters. It is very seldom that you will find a stream but what has some spring tri. butary to it, and in these rivulets or springs, we always recommend the applicant to plant the fry. Some peo- ple are careless in this regard and will, for convenience sake, plant the fish at some road bridge crossing the stream. Nine times out of ten there is a large pool under the bridge, and at the season of the year when the fish are planted, the large fish seek those pools. Mr. Clark’s idea is that his fingerlings are large enough to take care of themselves, but we all know the size of a trout when six months old—just large enough to 83 make nice bait for the larger fish—and in nine cases out of ten, his fingerlings are dumped out at some bridge, and the consequence is the little fellows, having been confined for so long a period and not knowing what it is to have an enemy, become an easy prey to the other fish. In case the fry, which has not lost the natural instinct of evading enemies, is planted near a bridge, they at once dart off to some stone or other convenient and suitable hiding place for cover, and I am firmly of the belief that fry planted in a pool with larger fish will have a much better chance of living to try the skill of some clever manipulator of the rod and line, than fingerlings would have under the same circum- stances. Some five years ago we planted 400 two-pound lake trout in one of our lakes at Madison. The following morning after the fish were planted, four of those same fish were brought to Mr. Dunning, the President of our Board, having been taken from the mouths of pickerel speared during the night; and I am of the opinion that not one of those fish lived twenty-four hours after they were set at liberty in the lake, and that they all became the prey of other fish. It was like placing a lamb in a lion’s den for safekeeping. The success of the Commissioners of Fisheries of the Badger State in stocking the streams of the common- wealth with brook trout fry, has been fully demons- trated. Brook trout were not known to exist in the streams in the central portion of the State until the Fish Commission was inaugurated, and the commissioners began planting fry; and it is in this section of the State that the commission receives the most credit. Here are some of the finest stocked trout streams there are in any State in the Union, and in a section of country where the streams are fished by thousands during the fishing season. I see by the Mz/waukee Sentinel of May 11th, that one man took 7,000 brook trout out of one of these 84 streamsalone last season. It was reported through the press that 5,000 brook trout were taken from the streams in the vicinity of Sparta, Monroe County, the first day of the open season this year. It seems to me if the ‘‘ Badgers” had to depend on my friend, Clark’s plan of stocking a stream with from one hundred to five hundred fingerlings, that they would go fish hungry after the first day’s fishing for the remain- der of the season or until such time as the stream was replenished. The people of the State of Wisconsin are well satisfied with the results obtained by planting fry. The only trouble is we cannot hatch enough of them to supply the demand, as Wisconsin is fast becoming a great resort for summer tourists during the fishing season. I hope that the next annual meeting of the Fisheries Society will be held in Chicago, and at a season of the year when all those who are engaged in fishculture will be able to attend. Those who may have time and wish to take a short season of recreation and enjoy a few days’ fishing, I will take pleasure in accompanying them to some of our famous trout streams, that they may view for themselves what has been accomplished in our State by stocking the streams with fry. I enclose herewith a letter from the Hon. J. S. Bugh, County Judge of Waushara County, which speaks for itself for the success of stocking the streams of our State with fry. If we thought it necessary at this late day in the work of fishculture to offer further proof of our suc- cess in stocking streams with fry, we could furnish a thousand just such letters: Mr. Jas. Nevin, Wautoma, Wis., May 17th, 1892. Supt. of Fisheries, My Dear Sir: Madison, Wis. I have received your letter of the 14th inst., in which you ask me, first, to give you ‘an estimate of the num- 85 ber of brook trout taken from the streams of Waushara County, with rod and Jine during the past year, or years, since trout were first planted in those streams.” If you had asked me to enumerate the leaves on the trees, or the stars in the sky, I could as easily give you the number. When you understand that in this county there is the White River, the McCan Pine River Willow Creek, Rochacre Ten-Mile Creek and many other streams with their innumerable branches, all trout-bear- ing streams, and fished by men, women and boys here and coming here from all over the State and even from as far east as Boston, you will readily see how impossible it is to even approximate the number. ‘The estimate might be made in ¢oxzs, but not in numbers. Your second question, ‘whether trout were known to exist in streams in this county: before being planted by the commission ?” I have heretofore assured you that there were none, and I now repeat that having lived here for over forty years and hunted and fished everywhere in this and adjoining counties, they could not have existed unknown to me. I wish to say to the commission that no one thing has brought this county into notice and advertised it so much as our trout streams. Sportsmen who come here to fish all say, that, taking all things into consideration, the advantages of civilization and freedom from the annoy- ance of flies and mosquitoes, it is excelled nowhere in the United States. Should be pleased to have you and President Dun- ning come up and see us. Truly yours Hod ‘owe / Ds aa UGH: When the paper was concluded, Mr. James said: I don’t know that we come fully under that category. We have been engaged in a very hard work there, to try and keep people fishing out our streams, who have with wires and every conceivable arrangement endeavored to clean them out. We have now laws that will protect us some- 86 what; we are cleaning. out the ground, and soon we will put such fish in such streams as we think will not inter- fere with one another in the way of devouring each other. We are aiming to accomplish this very object of bringing about a large supply of, fish in our different streams. We do plant them as far as we can get into the springs. We send them off as far as railroads wiil carry them, and then send carriages up as far as we can and deposit the fry. We have as yet held on to the fry business. Mr. Ford will bear me out, I think, that our shad supply a few years ago ran down to sixty thousand a year, and [ think last year it was in the neighborhood of three hundred thousand to four hundred thousand catch. So in our propagating the shad as we do there, by sending them up the river, we certainly are increasing the supply of shad in our Delaware River. PLANTING TROUT AS FRY OR YEARLINGS. By FreD MATHER. Mr. President and Gentlemen: In the last report of this society, pages 11 to 13, this question was discussed in a small way, neither side hav- ing any figures to show the cost of feeding and planting a trout which was a year old. I am quoted as saying: “T do not believe that it is economy to raise trout” [for distribution | “to be a year old,” and that belief has been confirmed by subsequent experience. The advocates of planting yearlings have had an inning and have venti- lated their views in the newspapers and periodicals, but the other side has not been heard from, and, if I am not mistaken, this opening gun from our line will be fol- lowed by others of larger calibre. We believe that the best results will be had from planting trout as fry and will essay to prove it. If a man wishes to plant an orchard he would like to 87 have trees that will give him a crop at once, and if he would stock a stream he naturally wishes yearling fish ; hence the scheme of feeding trout until they are a year old commends itself to the anglers and also to their jour- nals, but what they want and what we can afford to give them are different things. The nurseryman will give you several small trees for the price of an older one, and the fishculturist can give you a hundred, or more, fry, cheaper than he can raise and deliver you a yearling trout. That the yearling is worth many fry is true, for it has escaped a class of enemies that can only kill smaller fish, but the kingfisher can still take it, and does. I will not consider the question of the ability of a pond- fed fish to take care of itself, for it may be able to do so, and I propose to treat the subject squarely and strictly on what I believe to be its merits. - At the last meeting of this society, it seemed as if my position was unsupported to any extent, and this was not encouraging to one whose only object was the general good of fishculture, but months afterwards letters of approval incited an experiment in the cost of feeding young trout and a consideration of the expense of plant- ing them; but it was not until the first of January last, that my foreman received orders to weigh and record the food of 16,300 brook and brown trout, the hatch of the previous spring. The record gives date, pounds of food, temperatures of air and water, and remarks on weather, etc. It covers the months of January, February and March, 1892, ninety-three days, on three of which we had no food. If it be said that these fish, so near a year old, would consume more food in the last quarter, the record shows that on twenty-three cold days the fish were not taking much food, ranging from four to eight pounds of horse meat, against fifteen or twenty pounds on other days. During the previous quarter, October to December, I have the word of the man who cut the meat, that the fish took more food; for we have little cold weather on 88 Long Island before Christmas, and the record shows that the taking of food was influenced not only by the tem- perature of the water dropping below 4o degrees Fahr., but also by the temperature of the air and the atmos- pheric conditions. Therefore I am disposed to take this, the last quarter, as a fair estimate of the consumption of food during the year, for we started in with 25,000 fry which fed along from March to nearly the last of May, when the mortality began, the weaker ones died, and there is a great waste of food when so finely chopped as it is necessary to be for the “babies.” Horse meat has been spoken of and a digression may be pardoned to say that during my twenty-four years’ life as a fishculturist, the question of the best and cheapest food for trout has been the leading one. Beginning ° with hen’s eggs, which is the worst of all, the usual beef’s liver, lights (lungs), heart, maggots, mosquito-larve, soft clams, mya asenarza, and salt water mussels, mytzlus edulis, have been tried until, in November last, a man who kills wornout horses for their hides, bones and dog- meat, was found who delivers us clean, sound muscle, ' free from bone, of horse, mule, or cow that died in calv- ing. at the uniform price of four cents per pound at the station, and it is the best food for trout, and the cheap- est that we have found. At this station beef livers from New York averaged, with express charges, seven cents per pound, z¢., they cost fifty cents each and averaged ten pounds apiece, and the freight on the box cost forty cents whether containing one or three, and the supply was uncertain. To resume: During the quarter mentioned we fed 16,000 trout, as follows: January, . ; . 328% lbs. February, : a 451) Ao March, ; vole Naveigi.” es 1,140% 89 ‘This, for ninety days, would equal 12.66 pounds per — ‘day, which at .04 cents per pound would cost a trifle over .50% cents per day, or $184.00 per year for the 16,000 fish. Divide this and it gives $11.55 per 1,000 fish. Add to this the transportation. One man can take care of ten cans of fry for twenty-four hours, and each can will carry 5,000 fry or 30 to 50 yearlings, according to size. Say, for instance, that you have 1,000,000 trout fry to plant. This will require one man for twenty days if he can take them in lots of 50,000, in ten cans of ten gallons capacity, each. Without counting railway fares his daily expenses, say $3.00, and his pay, say $2.00, would equal about $100.00 for the whole. Now keep this fry for one year and if you have good luck you may have 600,000 to plant. From thirty to fifty of these is all that can be -carried in a can, and ten cans is as many as a man should be asked to care for on a trip of twelve to twenty-four hours, or 500 at one time, at the largest figure. This would require twelve men for one hundred days, and again throwing out railway transportation, would cost at the low average of $4.00 per day. per man, for wages and expenses, the sum of $4,800.00 and I defy any man to prove that the results of feeding trout to be yearlings, and then planting them, would bein any sort of proportion to the expense of food and transportation, which, added together would make a grand total that would be appall- ing to States with small appropriations. Let us say that one yearling is worth ten fry, which has not been proven, and then compare the expense! Let us plant fry in sufficient numbers to allow for all losses and not waste our means on planting yearlings, a new notion which has been loudly heralded as a grand ‘success but which cannot be proven to be so. It has somewhere been stated that the U. S. Fish Com- mission had stocked some far Western Stream with trout 90 _ fry for years and no good results followed; a year or two ago some yearlings were put in and lo! the stream now affords good fishing! If fry cannot live in this stream we might ask how thestock is to be kept up? By plant- ing yearlings each year when their progeny cannot live ? Surely such a stream is not a good stream for trout and should be abandoned. That those who have streams to be stocked will clamor for yearlings instead of fry is to be expected. They would like two-year-olds also, and if we would give them our old three-pounders they would be very happy ; but, they should apply for their two-year-olds just two years. before they need them, and give us twelve months to produce yearlings on natural food in their own streams. without expense to the state. When we count the cost of food, attendance and plant-- ing, with incidentals, such as ice, extra help, etc., it will be found that a yearling trout will have cost from six to: ten cents more than it would if planted as a ‘‘baby” the year before. Of course the item of transportation is one that cannot be accurately figured for obvious reasons. A man may be gone from half a day to three days with ten cans of fish, costing from two to fifteen dollars for his. labor and hotel bills, exclusive of railway fares, and the planting of yearlings cannot, it seems to me, begin to. compensate for the great cost of rearing and planting them. The assertion has been made that it is the best. method, and this has been repeated and reiterated until many people believe it. There are but few men in the country whose practical experience renders them compe-. tent to speak on this question, and I am assured that an overwhelming majority of them are in favor of planting: fry. y N. Y. FisHERY CommIssION, Cotp Sprinc Harszor, New York, May, 1892. I append the records, mentioned, as received from the: man who fed the fish. 91 “A[peq Suipasy ysy ‘Sutrojsnqq pue Apnojg|***'*g— ,, IPE ,, |°*"'* g eel ipe, os 1 Fiala ‘MOUS OUIOS pus SuLIOIsN{g|*****OF ,, Jo ,,; |-°°"* 21 a pte OC Ae ‘poos Sutpac; ysy ‘evapo pue towsem|'**** Ph =, joz_,, «tt SE SS lll ese Cis *A[aley Sutpooy ysy ‘901 Jo 1wajo spuog|****"9& ,, Jor ,, |°°°** Z 3 spare} Coens "Ysy paoj JOU plnod ‘1aA0 UszoIy spuog|**"""SE ,, |vo ,, |*°*** Ooo FF sane SIL teas *peq Ara Sutpasj ysy ‘plod puv Suuajsnfg|****‘oh ,, Jor ,, |°°*** € ae 23-2 IOS Se *19939q Sulpasy ysy ‘ouy rayyeam|'*** "eh =, «JOE, [ttt ad Sek Se Osa "MOUS 9UIOS pue ApnorD|**** ‘or . ne. ee5* OF # seceehy f ‘hep Aiaao spuod wos payjou asnjoy|‘**"'bh =, ~Jo€ 4, [°°° * Ex i a eee poo oe *pooj o10UI SuIyE} YS “IouIVAM Oya | "*°°°6E =|, «jer, [ot tt: SI i Ped ama WsioqroUlpoopmsymuGola) is ee = 500 SION oe ules eS =f SOE ‘Apnops ‘peq Surpass ysy ‘Avp ye pjoo|*****ge—,,_ Pg, ft? wi Seta oz ,, *poos ajmnb Sutpaey ysy ‘wiem puvaregip|''*bh shh Og, fo HET x EE {0) Bice ‘WV O€'L ye udye} Ja}eM pue me jo oiNjerodmiay|*****zh g,_fOk:SC(g,s« 1 SZ Er ss HEE Ch ese ‘191}9q Surpasy ysy ‘wafD/-** "gf =, hg, 7 846 ” reetckT 5, *peq 419A Suipoay ysy ‘Apnojo pue ppoo qayeml see “gE =, «lor, [tot - e555 FOrer ‘Aj100d Surpeaj ysy ‘Butmous|**** br ,, |Zé ,, [-**" g SOI eames *poos Suipsaj ysy ‘avoo pue towel ss *gh =, iPS Sg, ott: on ee I 2 A ae " 3 = tee pp a Ot ate LE eae y ee ae ‘pood A19a Suiposj ysy ‘avapo|-*--'sbg,)SCTHE C4, [ttt St Sa. ilies SSedey, ” ” ” ” nO ” Bz ” ae oI ” = cae ” *‘poos A19A Surpooj you ysy ‘ppoo wajyem|'**''6€ =, Igr ,, |*t* O1 re Pass - ‘Iyey sooisep ob 0} 6€ wory uMoOp st ey. oo re nit I= ag aulliaese: BORA ae ese oy OI 6 Jovem ay} UsYM “Wg PF [HUN "JY ZI WoIZ pooj s10W sawmMsuod ystq|***""6E ,, jor ,, |°°°** SZ1I came | *19919q Suipssj ysy ‘avapo tayywam|** *°6E€ 3, |zz ., [tott’ ZI 5 Se Scare rs “Aj100d Sutpaaj ysy ‘mous Aaveayzy|**** ‘oP 9 "W'd S pue ‘Wy g jo Sinoy sy} UseMIEq pay Yysty|****ob =,,_— 6x Cg, [ttt ad soa eae ae v € “A[peq Sutpaez ysy ‘Apnojo pue rapjoo sayem|**** oh =, (6r_g,_- 77° 34g i alee a *‘Sutpsaj yo peddoup ysy ‘rapjoo ‘aueg]/*** "Lb =, (gE Sg, [ttt SI Weel naee ee , ” ” ” ” iia: Gane es |) Be eee |) eee ie eS eet ‘Aep & SOUT} INoJ pay ‘poos Surpsey ystq|**** Sb ‘razepylgS ‘ary)"**** gr ‘spunog|*****1r ‘azeq ‘ONIGAAY LON Od ASAVD ANV NOILNA—SUAVWAY ‘AUNLVAAdWNA | ‘16g ‘“HOUVW GAHILVH LNOUL AVA 000‘91 LNodv Aq ‘6gt ‘AUVNNVE AO HLNOW AHL DNINNG GAWNSNOD dood 92 *poos Suipesy ysy ‘rowley |** "MOUS dWOS ‘I1e} Surpacy ysy ‘Apno[d pue 1apoo| ** *poos Surpaay ysy ‘1ea]9 pue wueA|** *pood Suipesy jou ysy ‘yysiu [UN MOT Jo3eM ‘spuod Sutuvals paystuty| °° *paaj jou prp ysy ‘Appnut puv Moy 19}vm ‘spuod yno pautayD| *- *poos Ai9a Surposj ysy ‘wieMm pue Apno[o|:* *poos A19a Sutpaey ysy ‘1val> pue wae! ** *pood £19 Surpasj ysy ‘1e9]9 Aep ay} Jsou pu JoULIE AA |** *poos Surpeay ysy ‘ures sulos pue wie] *- *poos Suipaay ysy ‘Ajstur pue wie )** “ASULIJS pue Je} Sv poo} oy} yNq ‘a10ul Usye} DALY P[NOmM YsIy|** ‘evapo ‘19}}9q Sutpse; ysy ‘uoou Aq a}e1apou A190 A|°* *pood os Suipaaj jou ysy ‘Apnojo Azp oy} jo jred pur poo)": *Ajrtey Surpoay ysy ‘1vapo ynq ploo|"*** *poos A19A Sutpaaj ysiy ‘1va]o pue owe AA} ** "1am Ayre} Surpsey ysy ‘uoou Aq payesapoyy| ** ‘A[peq Surpsaj ysy ‘ploo pue sursaysnypq| *** *Ajuey Surpsaj ysy ‘xeajo ynq ppoo 19y]va AA |" * *poosd os Suipacy jou ysy ‘durmous| ** “poos Surpaay ysy ‘evapo pue wae J9yyeI AM |*** *pooj Jo j10ys Bunjjas a1e Jnq ‘ajoul usye} Avy p[nom ysiy|*** *poos Surpesy ysy ‘1vo[9 pue Wem JoyjeaM ‘ysy Dulezis paysiurq|* ** ‘19}]9q Burpee} ysy ‘uoou Aq poyesspoy||"* ‘A[peq Surpesj ysy ‘spuod ut 901 autos pur plo 118M! "* ‘poo 419A Surpasy ysy ‘1e9q5| °° *19}]9q Suipesy ‘siajrenb mou 119y} Ul auTOY ye s10u YsIy) °° *poos Surpee; jou ‘prim ysy ‘ysy pezis pue pajios| ** *poos A10A Surpaej ysy ‘ure sulos puv 1auie\\| °° *Ajirey] Surpesy ysy ‘urer auios pue wue,\|** “ONIGAAY LON YOd ASNVD ANV NOILNAI(—SHAVWNAY 2 ee ey, - gz SOVE er Og oe "PL ** bp rp gt TN 7) 1 ae a 3 Po aa | 22 |)! rete la oh cee 25 RoE ae eee Fe 2 “Ip ie of OG =, On ree - VI OR gy tee “Begg = BE Simi Pa cee ee 2 = OL . “LE - 8 °gf ,, 10% SP-BU- 5. |08 [SOR © 5,2 10V S/n Fe ea 2 Po 5 o gl ee BEE 45. - G0 CER / nee “ob mp gz sob oy gf ee bE Seon OVE gz “AUN LVUAIWA JT, ” ‘ary ‘sqi SLE see gI 3 eee *6z ee €1 es cA 8 Oe eee VI Ee Siete) ae eee S 7 eS LOF, se. v ap sees. Sz ee. gI ais CRW 11 wee ie Hs OST eS - tere zg ere cr - EO see cI < ICE 52 . tI 94°93 6F -* 3b ~~ ais 2 0-O . BrTK eS eeee “Ly “* VI eeee ‘gI eee gl 3 veooe +Gy see €1 aA EST +d ¢ fae S Pes sooorCy - €1 Ee se9 907 30 3 NT ALF +s ie te eeroy “+541 or lh ites eae a Sa eee ZI a “* We rte g i sereeg wee gI pa seer “¢ eee . oe eee pa) . a “eer oy Me Oe aay see oy ‘spunog teeeey ‘1681 ‘HOUVW GAHILVH LNOUL AVA 000‘g1 Lnogy Ag ‘26g1 ‘ANVNUdAA AO HLNOW AHL DNINNG GANNSNOD dood ” ‘ajeq 93 YMAHLVYW Gada *poos Surpasy ysy ‘auy 19yjyeaA\|° *auy JayjvaM “poof jo nO ‘Quy IayywaMm ‘pooj jorj10yC *poos Surpesj ysy ‘auy aye AK ‘poos Surpaaj ysy ‘urer swos pus Apno[D *poos Surpaej ysy ‘auy 19y}eI AA ‘auy AI9A Joy}JeIM ‘Pooy Jo 310YS| ° *pooj jo j10Ys ‘Ivald pue WIL AA : ‘pooS Surpeaj ysy ‘urer swos pue Apnojo|* ‘}I SAVY JOU PIp ‘a1OM Usye} DALY P[NomM Ysy “Ies]d puv AoE *Ajarey Surpaej ysy ‘Iapjoo euros ‘poos Surpeej ysy ‘uy pur IdULIE AA Jayjaq Surpass ysy ‘reap *, 003 Suipaaj jou ysy ‘Aep [je Apnojo pue pomoug ‘]Jom Apey Surpaaz Yysy ‘row1em outog *Ap1rey Surpsoj ysy ‘woo 11a}jze oy} Ul IBa]D ‘UOOUAIOJ ay} [[e PaMous ‘a}10q Buipaay Yysy ‘ieajo pu Taw1eM sUIOG *]jam Aprey Surpoesy ysy ‘plod pue Zurraysnjg ‘POOj ON *pooj jo y10YS|**** or *‘pooS Surpacy ysy ‘1apfoo pue Surreysnig ‘ule guos ‘poos A1aa Surpa9j ysy ‘Kep ay} Jo ysed Apnoyo pur Sutsajsnig ‘pooS Surpacy ysy ‘auy AIaA pue WIE *pooS paj ysy ures jo aytds ul ‘ulel oWOs pue WIE ‘pooS A1aa Surpaej Ysy ead pus WIE *pood Surpaej ysy ‘Iva[9 pue a}¥19p0oy *poos Surpesj ysy ‘1valo puv JOULE A, *19119q Surp2ej ysy ‘Ivajo pue uoou Aq pajelepow ‘poo Zurpaaj jou ysy ‘Apnoyd pue pfoo ‘Surraysnig -Ajpeq Surpoey ysy ‘Apnoyo pue pjoo ‘Surszaysnig *pood A19a Surpsej jou ysy ‘hep [Je paewsojs pue Surmoyg)**** Of ‘19} "AMALVUAINAL ‘“ONIGAAT LON Yoda ASNVD ANV NOILNAW—SHAAVNAY “CP eeee “tr ae se Gy Ste vater= Gr eeeee L¥ . ee “oP poe acy -* “FV I 74 3 see ‘IP eee “OV eee ‘IP : ‘oP eee ‘or sees OP sees -6¢ °**6¢ eee “6€ eee ‘or ae cD soee Cp sees “Ptr seer “tr RS a 1 So 17 sees eTPp coer “6¢ weer “gf eeee “gf 9? ” ” ” (<4 0% sq %oLE PAN lof ary =< eS oo 6 OL o- 61 Bi es sas eT “+ OL .- tz e- Lx + gr ** SiGr or *- Sz1 -°&6 9 ** 1 ‘spunog ‘16g1 ‘HOUVN GHHILVH LNOUL Adv 00%91 Lnogv Ag ‘26st ‘HOUVIN AO HLNOW AHL DNINNG CACAWNSNOD dood ” ” ” = G ” oe oe 4 ‘9}e(] FRY VS. FINGERLINGS. By HERSCHEL WHITAKER Of Michigan. Much has been said and more has been written in the last two years regarding the desirability of planting fin- gerling trout as against the planting of fry, as a surer and more effective means of stocking the streams of the country. The idea, like all new ones, has found ready advocates who have taken up the cry, until it has come to be believed that there is real foundation for the claim, and that it is a mistake to pursue further efforts along the line of fry planting. To those who have had experience in fishculture and are familiar with the results of the work done for the past ten or fifteen years, [ think the claim of the fingerling advocates does not appeal very strongly, but with the unthinking ones it has met with more favor than it deserves or would have received upon a full and thorough investigation. In considering this question we cannot fly in the face . of past great success as the result of stocking waters with fry, neither can we disregard the fact that if plants are made of fish at a fry age we have attained the maximum of output ata minimum of cost. That the cost of raising fish to the fry age is cheap no one can deny, and that it has been eminently successful is beyond refutation. This being admitted let us recall for a moment past experience and see what has been done and what has resulted from fry plants. No stronger argument can perhaps be presented on this point than the remarkable success attending the restock- ing of the shad rivers of the Atlantic Coast, which have been restored from a point of great decay to a condition where the fishing is profitable. This is emphatically the case with some of our salmon rivers, and noticably the Penobscot where the run of the salmon had almost entirely failed. The papers devoted to angling and fishing inter- ests have shown that for the last three or four years, or 95 perhaps more, the salmon are beginning to return to this river, and the spring accounts of the fishing at Bangor, made daily show that the stocking has been a success beyond all question, fish being taken as high as thirty pounds weight. The salmon and shad being anadramous inhabit, the fry have had to run the gauntlet not only of their natural enemies in the streams which they frequent but of the countless enemies of the ocean where they remain for the greater part of the year. Notwithstanding this condition of things the results speak for themselves. So much as a brief statement of what has been done in the sea coast fisheries of the country, and now let us consider for a moment the results of inland fry planting. It seems scarcely necessary in a body of this kind that I should call attention to the numerous and almost innu- merable inland streams of the New England, Middle and Northern and Northwestern States which have been restored from a decimated to excellently stocked streams. But let us go a step further. There was a fairer field for the demonstration of success in fry planting than has been afforded in my own state of Michigan, Prior to 1841 the lower peninsular of Michigan was practicably a zoological desert as far as the brook trout was concerned. Fry planting has been going on under the efforts of the Michigan Fish Commission for the last eighteen years, but it cannot be said to have been adequately done in point of numbers until the years following 1880; yet for ten or twelve years fine trout fishing has been had in more than half of the counties of that peninsula, and with the advent of this spring the number of streams opened to public fishing has been largely increased, until it may now be said that Brook trout can be had for the taking in fully two-thirds of the counties. This is in some measure true of the state of Wisconsin. The Saranac lakes in New York furnish another evi- dence of the success of fry planting of whitefish under somewhat adverse circumstances, the lake in which they 96 were introduced being filled with their natural enemies, and yet from a small plant made in this lake about the year 1885 we learn that adult fish have been taken. All fishculturists who attempt to keep up their stock of parent fish by raising a certain quantity of fry each year are familiar with the great mortality occuring at the period when the young fish has finally absorbed his food sac, and is ready to take the natural food provided by nature. At this time when he “rises” in search of this. natural food if he does not find it he is compelled to take the artificial food prepared for him, and the difficulty of adapting his stomach to this food results in a loss which varies somewhat from fifty to seventy-five per cent. If the young trout at this period of his existence were allowed to forage for his natural food this mortality would be greatly reduced. There are streams that are well known in Michigan which have had plants of fry not to exceed five hundred in number which within three years. from the time of stocking have shown up well, and to-day without further stocking afford good sport to the angler. Within the current month there appeared in the Detroit daily paper an interview with a prominent fishculturist who took occasion to say “I believe, and against great opposition have always maintained, that 100,000 yearlings. planted were more likely to live and thrive than 5,000,000. fry.” Making due allowance for the enthusiasm of the interviewed party and for the natural predisposition of man to defend his pet theories, let us see where these figures would leave us. We will start with 5,000,000 fry planted, and we will say that twenty-five per cent. perished the first year, ten per cent. the second year, and five per cent. the third year. At the end of the second year after deducting the twenty- five per cent. for loss, and estimating the number thus left to be composed of one-third females, which would cast on an average 250 eggs apiece, there would be added to the stock 281,250,000. Estimating that there will be a 97 loss of seventy-five per cent. of this number we have left 70,312,500. At the end of the third year we would have 1,068,750 spawning females casting on an average 450 eggs each amounting to 480,937,500. Deducting from this amount seventy-five per cent. for loss, and we have left 120,234,375. These added to the original plant, after having deducted therefrom for loss on the original plant twenty-five, ten and five per cent. for the three years, and we have left as the result of a 5,000,000 plant 193,753,125. ; Now let us take 100,000 yearling trout: At the end of the first year after planting we deduct ten per cent. for the mortality in the adult fish which leaves us 90,000. Of this number one-third being females, we would have 30,000 spawning fish which would cast on an average 250 eggs apiece. This would give us 7,500,000 and deducting seventy-five per cent. for mortality we have left 1,875,000. ' At the end of the second year after planting after having deducted five per cent. loss for adult fish, 85,500. One-third of these being spawners, will cast 450 eggs, each amounting to 12,825,000. Deduct from this amount seventy-five per cent. for mortality and we have left 3,206,250. At the end of the third year after having deducted five per cent. for loss we have left 81,225 fish. One-third of this number being females will cast on an average goo eggs to each fish amounting to 24,367,500. From this amount deduct seventy-five per cent. for loss, leaving 6,091.875. At the end of the third year we must also take into consideration the fry hatched from the fish hatched at the end of the first year which will have arrived at their first spawning age. This number will amount to 1,875,000. From this amount deduct twenty-five per cent. for mor- tality and we have 1,406,250. One-third of these being females leaves 468.750 spawners which will cast 250 eggs © apiece amounting to 117,187,500. Deducting from this quantity a loss of seventy-five per cent. and we have left 98 29,296,875. The above amounts added together make the total result of the planting of 100,000 yearling trout at the end of a three-year period amount to 40,551,225, as against 193,753,125 as the result of the fry planting of 5,000,000, Considering the results, therefore, of fry planting from which practically all the results we have are due, we must assume that it has been eminently successful, and when we consider the cheapness with which this work is done it would seem that the ample success of fry plant- ing is simply incontestable. The President asked for discussion, and Mr. Farrpanks said: It has occurred to me on hear- ing these papers that there is an opportunity or chance to harmonize the views of these people, according to the location and the character of the streams of the country in which they are located. If there is anything I can do to harmonize Mr. Clark and Mr. Mather, I will do so. In the first place, consider the question of feeding young fry on their natural food in natural ponds. That of course takes into account the matter of the cost of con- structing those ponds. If the grower of the young fish is so situated, if his springs are such that he can construct these natural ponds cheaply, if he can make thirty or forty of these natural ponds of a hundred feet in diameter in which he can plant the weeds and the moss and the plants that the shrimp grow in naturally, he can feed his young trout until they are yearlings at a very small cost; the whole cost is in the original construction of the ponds. Maine are very cheaply constructed, a very trifling sum. If they are so situated that those natural ponds can be constructed and the natural food of the fry can be put in there, you can turn your fry in and raise them at a very small cost. Under such circumstances I have no doubt the yearling trout is the best one to transplant. But if he must be fed and it cannot be done cheaply, or U9 if it is very expensive, as in the case of Mr. Mather, then I should plant the fry by all means. There is another important consideration which, to my notion, has more to do with it than the other. That is the character of the stream in which you plant your fish. The success in Wisconsin has been very great, as has been stated in the paper which was read. I have been familiar with that. I got the first bill passed which established a commission in the State of Wisconsin, some fifteen or sixteen years ago. The streams in Wis- consin are much larger and deeper and better streams to plant fry in than are the streams in New York and Penn- sylvania or any of the New England States, which are small, babbling, shallow brooks, abounding with all sorts of little fish, enemies of the fry. But you put the fry in these Wisconsin streams or in the Michigan streams and the water is deeper and they have a great deal better chance ; they do not have nearly as many enemies as they do in the streams of New York, Pennsylvania and New England. And in those streams I am inclined to think that a yearling trout is a better fish to put in than the fry. Of course you have got to be governed in your location by the expense; that is another element. Where your yearling trout costs ten cents, as in the case of Mr. Mather, there is no question about it, the fry is the cheapest, and you will get better results from it. But if you can feed the fry on natural food and it does not cost you anything up to a yearling, then the yearling is the better fish to plant. My yearlings do not cost me any- thing. I give them absolutely no attention whatever, in these natural ponds that I speak of, and where you can construct those natural ponds—and there are very few places I think where you cannot—I think even where Mr. Mather is he can construct a dozen or so. Mr. Wuitraker—Are those private ponds or feed pond for other streams? Mr. FairsanKs—No, they are private ponds. But I 100 have no doubt where you have hatcheries, where the land is right, the formation is right, and you have water enough to construct your natural ponds at moderate expense, then you can raise your fry up to a yearling at a very trifling expense, and in that case yearling planting is the best. But you cannot lay down inflexible rules, because it depends so much upon location and expense and other causes. Mr. CrarK—!I do not wish to occupy the time of the members on this very much discussed question, because there has been so many things brought up here it seems to me, only to be answered by another paper another year. As to the personal attacks upon me, I have nothing to say, any further than this, the quotation as it has been remarked here by one paper—which is a per- sonal attack, for it uses my name—I made a statement that I believe 100,000 yearlings were better to stock streams that 5,000,000 fry. And [still believeit. I can show quotations from eminent men—more so than myself —I think if you will look at the reports, our late Pro- fessor Baird made a more rash statement than that. We have already had one paper read here to-day by some gentleman from England, I think; the statement in it is broader than mine, so that my statement is not. the worst that ever was. Here are a few figures that Mr. Mather gives us in regard to the cost: He makes out that fry, or yearlings, rather, cost ten cents a piece. I make out that they cost less than acent apiece. Perhaps from my paper you did not just exactly understand how I arrived at that. I took two years. There was no guess- work about the cost of my business, that [know. 1 did it on the same principle that your bank examiner of the State calls for a report, and takes every book. You simply have got to give him a report of what it is. The figures for food of those two years were taken from the books and accounts of the U. S. Fish Commission, and the books are open for inspection; that you will know. 101 The cost for food was taken. I did not commence two years ago to keep track of this, but I simply took the beef liver bill; and of course you know, and every other fishculturist knows, that for the first two or three or four months, at least a. half of that is wasted. I did not, as brother Mather says, weigh this food; I simply took the bills; that is the way I arrived at what it cost. Then the amount of labor was as I have given you. If my men were called off, down went the pencil, so much time on the fry, and it was the actual time in regard to it. There is one point in regard to yearlings that I wish to state as near as I can. It is possible that some of the U. S. Commission men can help bear me out in this. Two years ago last August, I think it was, there were 80,000 yearlings—they were well-grown fish—were taken to the Yellowstone Park by the U. S. Fish Commission. As I understand to-day from very good authority, the Yellowstone Park streams and lakes are well stocked with trout; and they did not have the trout there before. It is well stocked with good fish. Mr. Pace—I think they have succeeded so well that they have very young fish there also. Mr. Ctark—Good results from yearling planting. On the basis of what those fish cost me, there would be probably $800. and you count the expense of getting them on the ground, and the men’s time that distributed them, and all that, probably would be $400. more, some- thing like that, I can’t give vou accurate figures. Mr. Mather says a hundred fry can be raised for less money than it costs to raise one-year old trout. 1 have not figured that out; it would seem as though that is not right, but I have not figured it out. Mr. Bowman—There are some facts that these gen- tlemen can all agree upon. It certainly is a great benefit to plant either fry or yearlings. I think it is a conceded fact by everybody that yearlings are better than fry. It is a simple question of which can be produced 102 the cheapest and which will produce the greatest result for the least money. This question of food is a particularly interesting ques- tion. Caledonia has been alluded to and the Spring Creek at Caledonia. And I think there is no stream on the face of the earth that produces the amount of natural food for trout that that stream does. It has a great variety of plants. If you pick up a handful growing in any part of the creek, it will be alive in your hand. Where you have a stream of that kind, and where these mosses and those plants can be set in the stream which will produce that amount of food, of course you can rear a limited number of trout to a year old at a very little expense. We have raised for years at Caledonia—for the last five or six years—anywhere from five to ten to fifty thousand yearling trout. We have not adopted the plan of the gentleman from Wisconsin. But we have raised in ponds four feet wide by twelve feet long a stream of water running through, feed them upon liver, chop it and put it throngh sieves until it is reduced to a pulp; and to-day at the ponds at Caledonia we have ten or fifteen thousand yearling trout, we have pursued a policy of distributing both, although the greater amount have been distributed as fry. What we want is best results for the smallest amount of money. ‘That ought to be the object. Produce the greatest results both in trout and food for the smallest amount of money. That has been our aim. Now the results obtained. One result for instance: shad were never known upon the Pacific coast until that coast was stocked by the Commissioners of the State of New York; and I understand that shad to-day are abundant upon that coast, and sell, I understand, from ten to fifteen cents apiece. That stocking was done with fry, fry were taken from our coast to the Pacific coast by Seth Green, under the direction of the Fish Commission of this State, and were turned loose on that coast where 103 there were no shad before. The result is you have abundance all over that country. As has been alluded to, the Hudson River has been stocked with fry, and the Connecticut River has been stocked with fry. After a certain length of time the Connecticut River ceased to be stocked and the Hudson River continued to be stocked, and the result has been that we have found fine fishing every year in the Hudson River, while the shad have almost disappeared in the Connecticut River, and yet the two rivers are only a few miles apart. This has been the effect of stocking with fry. Take the Chatauqua Lake, in which there was never any bull head until they were put in by the New York Commission. They are a very much abused fish, for in good water it is an admirable fish. To-day anyone can go out with a hook and line, into Lake Chatauqua and can take a good basket in a very short period. That was stocked by putting in the adult fish. Of course the bull head and the black bass are different from almost any other fish; they make their own spawning beds and take care of them during the process of incubation and they protect their young until they are large enough to protect themselves. Hence the New York Fish Com- mission have always stocked different lakes and different streams in this State by putting in the adult fish. Where you have a fish of that kind that will take care of its young, that will fight everything. away from the spawn, the sucker and everything that comes to eat it up, and will take care of it until the fry take care of themselves, there is no doubt that putting in the larger fish is a decided advantage. With the trout they do differently. Trout makes its spawning bed with its tail, deposits its eggs upon the sand, the male comes along and deposits the milk and they go away and leave it. The young fry is hatched by the water going over it. As they come out, nature has provided a little sac upon which it feeds until it is old enough to search for its own food. 104 Air and water are usually furnished without price, but the great struggle of the animal world is to get food, and it feeds upon anything it can come to; if driven, upon its own kind even. After this sac is absorbed, this small fish immediately turns its attention to taking care of itself. The small fish or fry instinctively seek at once the upper channels—you never see fry going down stream. I can go right into Caledonia and I will find little trout wiggling up stream. I think they instinct- ively go up stream to get food and get away from their enemies. This is simply a question of opinion, and I think gentlemen should express their opinions fairly. I am not a believer in the fact that so many of these fry are consumed by their enemies as a great many men seem to say. Of course there must be great mortality ; they have a great many enemies. So have the larger fish: you have the snake, the kingfisher and a variety of ene- mies, and more or less fish will be consumed. But the fact is patent, that the streams of Michigan and Wiscon- sin and the Adirondack region of the State of New York, have been stocked by the distribution of fry. Now, my own judgment and my own belief is, that that is the cheapest and the best way to produce the best results. We hatched at Caledonia from four to six mil- lions of fry. To raise those to yearlings, you cannot do it on my friend’s plan from Wisconsin. Perhaps there is a water that you can put in twenty or thirty pounds at the most.. If I had a pond of my own and was pursuing it for my own benefit, I would undoubtedly pursue the same course as my friend; but when you pursue business on a wholesale scale, you have got to follow a different plan from where you plant two hundred thousand for your own use. I can raise any amount at Caledonia, but when you come to raise four or five millions for distri- bution, you have got to have something to supply the demand. And I think that is where this question turns, If you are going to raise a large number, five, six, or 105 eight, or ten millions to distribute over a State, I think it would be impossible to raise them to yearlings. If you want to raise a limited number, you can do it in almost any hatchery in this State. I think it is desirable. We have pursued the plan of raising every year three or four or five hundred thousand, and we raise them in these ponds. Many of you have seen them. We require a little different applications from those which many of the gentlemen here have spoken of. We ask the applicant to tell us the depth of the water, the temperature of the water, whether hard or soft, and a general description of the stream; and if we find that fifty or a hundred year. lings will start that stream better than the fry, we send the yearlings. We have done that in several instances, although the great distribution has been made by the distribution of fry to different places. It strikes me as though the judgment of every person here is to do the greatest good to the greatest number. am glad to see this discussion; progress comes out of it. If any man can convince me, show me we can do better by planting yearlings than fry, I would stop as a com- missioner and advocate the policy of never distributing another fry, but all yearlings. But I believe the best thing to do is for each hatchery to raise a certain amount of yearlings and distribute fry, put them up in the upper part of the small streams where they can take care of themselves and where they can find other food after the sac is gone. They can be transported readily up into the upper streams where they can hide. I think you will find the best results in that. I think experience has shown that the streams of a country can be stocked quicker and cheaper in that way than they can in any other. (Great applause.) Mr. May—I will read a couple of telegrams addressed respectively to Dr. Herschel, one from Mr. Blackford, and the other from Mr. Collins, Chief of the Depart- ment of Fish and Fisheries. 106 Mr. Ctark—There is one little point here. Some of the members here do not know me as well as Mr. Mather does., I do not wish it to be understood that I advocate nothing but planting yearlings. Not for a moment. It would be utterly impossible to raise them. But I mean to do as the United States Fish Commission does, last year at their carp ponds in raising shad put in there, raise what you can. White fish the same way. Mr. BowmMan—Have you ever raised a shad from young? Mr. CLark—They have shad that are fourteen months old as I saw them, nice, clean, healthy shad, in salt water. The shad the gentlemen saw there last year, they were two inches long. Now, with shad and white fish, what I advocate is having places of that kind to keep them and then let them go out in the fall as two, or three, or four- inch fish, but not undertake to raise them all. Mr. Forp—I have a statement to make: I have never believed that the young trout fry were always subject to danger from so many enemies, as was popularly sup- posed. I asked our superintendent to make a plant in a small stream that runs through our grounds at Allen- town. This is what he says: “I planted the fry at the age of six weeks or about the middle of February. and visited the stream once or twice a week until April rst. I always found the fry just where they were planted. They appeared to be doing well and growing faster than those in the hatching house pianted in March or April.” They all appeared to do well. I certainly do consider it the best and most economical way to plant a stream, put fry out. They have been well fed. The fry are large and strong, and able to take care of themselves. Now, I will say that the State of Pennsylvania has always put out her fry at the age of two or three months. This year we have put out over three millions young fry. We could have put out six millions; we had applica- tions for that many, but we didn’t have the fry. Again 107 in the River Delaware, where the U. S. Fish Com- mission first planted fry, they were dumped in at high waier. But of late years they have been putting them up in the headwaters of the stream where the young fry naturally go. The result has been that there has been a great increase. The value of that shad taken in the Delaware River in 1881 amounted to $80,000, and in 1890 and 1891 between $500,000 and $600,000, show- ing a great increase and very satisfactory. I am no advocate of keeping young shad until they are large; I think putting them in ponds deprives them of their natural food. Mr. Rocers of Nova Scotia—I have been intensely interested in the various papers to which I have listened to-day, particularly on the subject of fry versus finger- lings; and on fish food. Any knowledge I possess on the subject is entirely practical. I live in a fish country, and we have been tor the last fifteen or sixteen years planting salmon. We have been conducting under ‘tie government fishculture on a pretty large scale. In Nova Scotia where I reside, many millions of salmon fry have been planted, and the results up to the present time have been very small. I am decidedly in favor of fishculture. Its possibilities are practically unlimited; there is no question about that. I want to relate two or three facts in relation to fish after the fry planting, which will be of importance, I think. I communicated some of them some years ago to Professor Goode of Washington. He was here this morning. I spent my childhood, my boyhood and manhood, close to a small river running into the country about thirty miles. When I was a boy we could buy a thirty-pound salmon for twenty-five cents; the river was literally crowded with fish. In process of time, across the mouth of the river, it was a common thing to see three or four hundred salmon dead, as a result of slaughter by 108 butchers. That ended it in a fewyears. Then not a fish was caught or seen in the river until a few years ago. We planted salmon fry at the very headwaters of the river. We planted them for the reason that the railroad crossed the head of the river and brought up the young fry from the hatchery; and that was their natural place; their instincts led them there to hatch their young, which takes about five months. They plow furrows in the gravel and cover them over. and the water filters slowly through the gravel, and produces the continuous slow change, and the current carries away the autumn leaves so that the eggs will not smother. They also go there to get away from the abundance of the natural enemies of their young. This river I refer to, is now full of sal- mon. It is the only river in Nova Scotia that I know of, and I am familiar with all the practical results of planting fry, and I attribute the success to the reason that the fry are planted where they belong. In the other rivers, they are mostly all planted down at the lower portions of the rivers. These facts cannot be disputed. I communicated them to Professor Goode. The other fact is just this: We are in the habit of catching five or six hundred salmon in the early weeks in June and inclosing them in an inclosure and keeping them until October. We have tried to induce them to take food, but they won’t touch any sort of solid food. They are there for five months. In October they have rather gained in weight than lost. What did they feed on? They took no solid food. May it not be that they get their food out of the water? This would be for scientists to determine. I have thought that the water comes down over the watersheds in the spring months, richly freighted with that vegetable property which the bird gets in the bud and the wild animal gets in the bark and you and I get in the grain. This is their sustenance, they get it in liquid form. It is certain they eat nothing. May it not be possible that the fry feed on the same? 109 Mr. Farrsanks—These salmon are weighed before spawning when they come in in June, and then in Octo- ber you weigh them just before spawning, the spawn having been growing all the while, growing on the food which they got out of the ocean and the water, etc. It is the increased weight of the spawn that probably makes them weigh more. After they have spawned they would weigh a good deal less. Mr. Bincortt—I am very much pleased to see how cheap fish breeding has become; I mean to say that for the first time in my life. I have been in this business off and on for a long while. I now find you can raise trout and raise fish for nothing! And it isa miracle to me that the thing should come down to that basis. And if we can put out yearlings at a few cents a pound, I think we ought to go to work and doit. I was formerly in favor of fry; now I am in favor of yearlings by all means. For I find they can be brought up for nothing. One gentleman says nothing; one says eight cents; another says four and five cents; another says under eleven. That is the highest price. So I am decidedly in favor of yearlings. I think it would pay the United States to hire those gentlemen to show how it can be done, and buy our fish from them and stock our rivers. It is the cheapest thing I know of. (Applause.) * ‘Dr. Hupson—I want to say this single word to cor- rect a wrong impression of the gentleman who represents the State of New York,.Mr. Bowman. He stated in his remarks that while the Hudson River was being stocked annually with shad fry, that they had ceased doing the same on the Connecticut. I have no means of knowing where that impression arose. | know it does exist, but it is not correct. During all these years that the shad has been decreasing in the Connecticut River, the stocking has been going on precisely the same as formerly, and in very large numbers. If you ask me why the shad are now decreasing where they formerly 110 were increasing, it is a very difficult question to answer indeed. There is no doubt about the fact that the Con- necticut River being a smaller river than the Potomac, or the Delaware, or the Hudson, that it is very possible that the methods of fishing adopted at the mouth of that river may have had very much to do with the decrease of the fish. Gentlemen who are not familiar with the Connecticut River may not be aware that we have a sys- tem there which, so far as I know, cannot be adopted in any other river in the country; that is, ] mean to such a deleterious effect upon the shad. The shad coming into the Connecticut River, as they approach the river come from the West generally. Whether they come from Montauk Point or through the bay from the North River and the East River, of course no one knows; but they do strike the coast of Connecticut somewhere along for a distance of ten or fifteen miles from the mouth of the Connecticut River. It should be borne in mind, that the water from the mouth of the Connecticut River does not go straight into the Sound, but makes a bend around to the right, so that nearly for ten miles around from the mouth of the Connecticut River water can be dipped from the surface of the Sound fit for drinking purposes. As the shad reaches this fresh water to go into the Connecticut River, of course they are directed towards the mouth of the river and follow along in that: direction. Now I am going to allude to the effect of pounds on the Connecticut River: Those were estab- lished in 1849 along the mouth of the Connecticut River for ten miles, every few rods during that whole distance; those pounds were erected in the run at ten, thirty and forty rods, sometimes two and three miles out into the Sound, each year further and further. They were so arranged that every fish coming along from the Sound seeking the mouth of the Connecticut River had to run the gauntlet of that entire lot of pounds, fifteen, twenty, thirty of them running that distance. Those 111 pounds fish twenty-four hours in the day and seven days in the week. And how under the circumstances any shad ever succeeded in getting into the Connecticut River, was always a mystery to me, notwithstanding the fact that they did come in in considerable numbers. Just as soon as they have passed that gauntlet, the moment they enter the mouth of the river, they find from eighty to a hundred gill nets sweeping down into the river into the Sound, taking what shad were left from the pound. Those few shad that safely go above these gill nets, as soon as they reach Essex, which is about the upper station of the gill net, then every single sta- tion on the river from there to Holyoke where itwas possible to run a sweep net a sweep net was put; and these were so arranged as to go across the river and one follow the other as fast as possible. That fishing was continued in the Connecticut River for years until finally shad began to decrease very rapidly. In 1870 or thereabouts, after the shad hatching first began in the Connecticut, we increased the shad so rapidly, and there was such im- mense quantities of them that the fishermen begged us to desist, saying there is no use hatching shad you cannot sell. But the work was continued, the commissioners believ- ing that the proper work of the commission was to make shad cheap for the masses. As I said before, this fish- ing had gone on in such a way. But whether that is the cause of the decrease of the shad, I don’t know. I have stated this to correct Mr. Bowman’s idea. The com- missioners have continued all through this time putting shad into the Connecticut in enormous numbers up to within a year or two, and the last year or two it has been continued but not to such an extent. But in the mean- time the shad have come down from some four or five hundred thousand a year to about twenty thousand. For this year, as far as I recollect, the number is about thir- teen thousand, as I have heard only recently. 112 Mr. Farrsanks—They all increase very largely after the putting in first begins. Dr. Hupson—Yes; though they have been putting them in very large numbers of recent years ; some fifteen, twenty, thirty or forty millions every year up to about two years ago. Mr. BowmMan—Were those brought from other places ? ° Mr. Hupson—Yes. The work has been going on constantly. There is another reason which has been alleged. The fishermen allege this as one reason why the shad do not come into the Connecticut, namely, the breakwater which has been built near the mouth of that river by the U. S. Government for the purpose of increas- ing the depth of the outflow over the bar. They claimed that the effect of that is to send the water directly into the Sound instead of to the West as formerly ; therefore they think that may have thrown the shad into some other river, from the fact that further to the West towards New Haven some of the men take a great deal more than they do. Mr. Bowman—Can it not be that there is contamina- tion in the water. Dr. Hupson—As I was saying before, the Connecti- cut being a small river it may be more easily affected by contamination. Mr. JAames—Of course there is a question whether any contamination has been noticed along the river. Dr. Hupson—There never has been in regards to shad, but as to small fish there has been; carp and dace and such things, but not with the shad. Mr. Forp—The proof of Dr. Hudson’s remarks has been borne out by our experience in the Susquehanna and the Delaware. In the fourteen miles of the Susque- hanna within the State of Maryland there are hundreds of fishers that catch the young shad as they go down to the sea, and with the pound nets in the mouth of the river, there has been a constant and continual decrease in 1138 the catch of shad in the Susquehanna. In the Delaware in our State, in Pennsylvania, we have laws that everybody fishing with nets after the close of the shad season in the upper streams, that protect the young fry from the fine meshed nets, which are so destructive on the other rivers. Mr. MaTHER—I want tosay afew more words. I had concluded not to say a word more on the question of frv and yearlings, but I must add this: I have seen it stated that in some of the streams in the Yellowstone Park or West, several attempts were made to plant with fry, which failed, and other attempts made with yearlings succeeded. Now, the question naturally arises, suppose these yearlings do succeed and spawn there, what is to become of their fry when they are hatched?. They are the same kind of fry and of the same age we would plant. And it strikes me that if that is the case, if fry cannot live in those streams, and nothing but yearlings can, you have got to put in yearlings there every year or else there won't be any fish left. And as we have said something upon the cost of the fish here, without know- ing what their views are, | would ask Mr. Gilbert to say what he thinks a yearling trout will cost to raise, and I will ask Mr. Hoxie to give the same opinion. Mr. Crark-—Did you make a statement that fry could not live in the streams? Mr. Maruer—I said it had been said. Mr. CLark—How can I answer the question ? Mr. MatHer—The idea is this: If you plant fry in a stream and they cannot live, and if you plant yearlings and they do live, how are you going to stock that stream if fry cannot live in it? Mr. CLrarK—Will Mr. Mather point out where I am quoted as saying that [| would do anything of that kind ? Mr. MatHer—I do not say you said it; I say it has been said. Mr. Crark—If I found that fry did not live in the 114 streams, I would not plant yearlings. If I found that the fry were eaten up by something else, I would try yearlings to see if they would live. Mr. FarrsANKs—I would suggest that yearlings might be put into a place in a stream where food did not exist, and when they came to spawn their natural instinct would take them to the place in the stream where food existed. Just like trout go to spawn on the reefs in the great lakes because their food is there for the young. And the yearlings would naturally hunt up in the stream a place where there is some food. Mr. MatrHer—About the cost of raising trout I should like to hear. Mr. GriLpErt—The cost of my feed last year was about $400, and with that amount of food I raised about 30,000 yearlings. I have got now that number, and we have sold since the first day of April, 5,730 pounds of trout to the time I left home yesterday morning. Those have been raised from yearlings to two years old, large enough for the market, and also the 30,000 year old trout, all for the sum of $400 for the food for the whole year. I cannot say what part contributed to the young fry or to the yearlings or the year old fish up to two years; I do not keep any separate accounts. That does not include the cost of labor, but merely food. Mr. MatHER—What do you expect to sell your year- lings at? Mr. GrtperT—Well, we want $100 a 1,000. I would sooner sell fry for $4 a 1,000 than sell yearlings for $100 a 1,000. When you get trout a year old, my loss is not probably five per cent.; I do not know that it is three per cent. from year old to two years old. The great loss is up to four months. Although I do not know that up to the present time By the way, we never feed in the hatching boxes. SALE OF ARTIFICIALLY REARED TROUT. By W. L. GILBERT. I have always been greatly interested in the fish and game interests of the country, and also in the passage and enforcement of all reasonable laws for the protec- tion of the same. I presume my father did more than any other man in Plymouth, and at his own expense, in stocking the public waters of that town with black bass and white perch. I have on several occasions restocked the only public trout stream in Plymouth with trout fry whenever I had a sur- plus after stocking my own ponds. As only a small portion of the people are interested in the fish and game laws, it is always well in framing them to guard against the possible danger of having them so arbitrary as to interfere with the private rights of the people or with their industrial pursuits. We had an ex- ample of this nature in Massachusetts. Under the law the Fish Commissioners had power to lease the fishing rights in any great pond of over twenty acres to private parties, and they did so with a large number, thus taking away from the people at large the right to fish in any leased pond, under a penalty of $20 to $50 for every offense. The people stood it for a few years, and in 1884 they appeared at the State House in force and demanded and obtained the repeal of the law, and now the commis- sioners have not the power to lease any pond in the State. The policy of Massachusetts, and also of other States, has been to encourage the cultivation of trout and other useful fishes as a food product, and it was for this pur- pose that the several States and also the United States organized the Fish Commissions, and Massachusetts passed the law of 1869, the title of which is “An act to encourage the cultivation of useful fishes,” by which act 116 the people, for this purpose, surrendered to private par- ties, being riparian owners, all their fishing rights in every pond of less area than twenty acres, also in every unnavigable stream in the State. It also made fishes artificially cultivated or maintained the absolute property of the person cultivating or maintaining them. It also made it a penalty of $20 to $50 to fish in any waters in the State in which fishes are lawfully artihcially culti- vated or maintained. The commissioners called the attention of the people to this law in their report for the year ending January 1, 1870, in the following words: ‘The need of such a lawas this is the same as the need of a law to protect any in- dustry. While on the one hand we recognize the fact that a supply of good fresh-water fishes, among which we class the salmon, shad, trout, black bass and smelt, are essential as food for our people, we are still compelled to admit that the supply is constantly diminishing, and that several of these fishes are in many localities exter- minated. For this deplorable state of things there was but one remedy, and that was to make fishes under cer- tain conditions property, and thus give the same stimulus to the cultivation of fish that is given to the raising of any other live stock. Under the knowledge we now have such cultivation is as easy as that of poultry.” The successful cultivation of trout is no longer a mat- ter of doubt. It has passed through the experimental stages and now stands out as destined to become one of the great industries of the people, and it will if the sev- eral States will only realize the importance of encour- aging the industry by repealing or modifying the re- strictive laws in relation to the sale of artificially reared trout. Some of the States have already done this. Con- necticut, Rhode Island and Maryland have modified their laws in relation to the sale of ‘trout artificially raised, and a bill to that effect has already passed the Massachusetts Senate, and is now pending in the House of Representa- 117 tives, and we trust New York and other States will fol- low suit in the near future. Our trout are all artificially reared from the egg, in artificially made ponds and on artificial food which we buy, and we pay a tax not only on our plant but also on our trout as stock in trade, and the law declares them to be our absolute property. Under these conditions we feel that we are entitled to the same property rights in trout at all seasons of the year that every class of property that is useful to man as a food product has, namely, the right to sell it at any and at all times when it is desirable to do so, and that our customers and ourselves shall be the judge of when that time is and not the State. Remove the restrictions from the sale of cultivated trout from January 15 to April 1, and people now in the business will enlarge their estab- lishments to their utmost extent to meet the largely in- creased demand, and others will be induced to enter into the industry to such an extent that ten years hence fifty pounds will be raised annually where one is now, thus giving employment and wealth to the people engaged in the industry, taxation to the towns and State, and the advantage of having this additional amount of food fishes added to the food product of the country during the lat- ter part of the winter, when nearly every kind of fish is scarce and often in poor condition, while cultivated trout are in fine order. It is an old adage that he who makes two blades of grass grow where one grew before is a public benefactor, and it must be admitted that he who makes ten thousand to twenty thousand pounds of trout grow annually where none grew before is also a public benefactor, and if restrictions against the sale are removed or modified, large tracts of now waste land and water will become valuable for the cultivation of ‘trout, and the expectations of Dr. Garlick, Dr. Ackley, Ainsworth, Seth Green, Livingston Stone, Theodore Lyman and other early disciples of fishculture will be realized, much valuable property created annually, many persons bene- 118 fitted, and no one in the least injured. I trust this soci- ety will give this subject careful consideration, and that. the laws of the several States will soon be changed so as to give full justice to fishculturists. STATE CONTROL OF STATE FISHERIES. By Hoyt Post of Michigan. At the last meeting of this society, just at the close of the session, there was hastily adopted a resolution, prefaced by four whereases, upon a subject matter which has since attracted considerable attention in certain quar- ters. This resolution related to petitioning Congress to assume the work of protection and propagation of fish in the waters of the great lakes, and the whereases suggested taking this work out of the hands of the sev- eral States which are now conducting it, it is said, ‘‘with slight probability of ever arriving at a harmony of action,” and placing it in the control of the Federal Government, which, it is stated, could, ‘‘with its great scientific, mechanical and financial resources, its power to make agreements with Canada, and its ability to enact and enforce regulations,” “undertake this work with far greater results” than have heretofore been attained. This resolution was a source of surprise to several of the State Commissions, and especially to that of Michigan, which took prompt action upon it. In October, 1891, a meeting of the Fish Commission- ers of New York, Pennsylvania and Ontario, with repre- sentatives of the United States Commission, and some others especially interested in the subject, was held at Fifth Avenue Hotel in the City of New York, the object of which was stated to be the “protection, pre- 119 servation and propagation of food fish in the great lakes.” This meeting appointed a special committee which met at the Chamber of Commerce in Rochester, New York, on November roth, 1891, at which meeting a series of resolutions was adopted, which were afterwards reported to the final meeting at Hamilton, Ontario, December 8th, 1891, and there finally adopted. The portion of the resolutions which pertain to the matter under consider- ation in this article is as follows, viz. : | “Resolved, That this body regards with disfavor any movement looking towards the turning over to the United States Government the work of the State Com- missions in propagating and planting commercial fish in the great lakes; “That the jurisdiction over the State Fisheries belongs naturally to the adjoining States, whose interest in their success is paramount to that of the United States as a whole; and “That there is an abundant field for the concurrent action of the bordering States and of the General Gov- ernment, and anything which would detract from the State’s interest in this matter will be detrimental to the’ end aimed at, of restocking the waters of the great lakes ; “And we recommend a course which will encourage and stimulate greater interest and larger expenditures in this great work by the several bordering States, and at the same time increased interest in the subject by the United States Fish Commission ; “Resolved, Further, that this body earnestly approves of the action of Congress in making an appropriation for the establishment of a hatching station on or near the St. Lawrence River for the propagation of white fish and other commercial fish; and of the purpose of the United States Fish Commissioner to carry out the provisions of that appropriation ; and we see nothing in this movement 120 that can in any degree interfere with the jurisdiction: of the States in the premises, or to affect in any way unfa- vorably the work of the States in the protection, multi- plication and distribution of valuable food fishes.” Afterwards the same subject was again brought promi- nently into view by the introduction in Congress at its present session of the Lapham Bill, so called (H. R. 5030), entitled “A Bill to regulate the Fisheries and for other purposes.” This bill related on its face to the taking of menhaden and mackerel with purse scines along the sea coasts and shores of the United States and adjacent islands and in the bays, harbors and estuaries thereof, but it contained an insinuating reference to the great lakes. Its evident aim was to extend the jurisdic- tion of the Federal Government over fisheries in waters which are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the States. This bill received such energetic opposition from the States of Maine and Massachusetts, aided by the Board of Fish Commissioners of Michigan and other States, that the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, to whom it had been referred, decided by a vote of seven to six that it was unconstitutional. Thereupon the promoters of said bill caused a new bill to be introduced which was known as H. R. 7553 and which was identical in principle with the former one. This bill was afterwards unanimously decided to be unconstitutional. The plan of interesting Congress and the Federal Government in the matter of Féderal control of the pro- tection of the commercial fisheries, has attracted con- siderable attention at various times for several years. From a superficial survey of the subject it seems to those not thoroughly informed, very desirable because of its tendency towards uniform rules and laws governing all the fisheries. Consequently the matter has been often considered, and while at first blush it appears very pro- mising yet the conclusion uniformly reached after careful 121 inquiry is that it is impracticable because Congress has no jurisdiction under the Constitution over the fisheries in waters which are within the boundaries of the States. A thoughtful consideration of the whole subject, how- ever, convinces most persons that it is also undesirable as well as unconstitutional. October 17th and 18th, 1883, an interstate convention of fish commissioners was held at Detroit, and .at the request of the Michigan Board, Otto Kirchner, who was then Attorney General of the State, examined the autho- rities and announced to the convention his conclusion that it was not within the powers of the Federal Gov- ernment to assume control of the fisheries in waters within the State boundaries. Within the present month John Z. Rogers publishes over his own signature in Harper's Weekly of May 14th, 1892, an article in which he forcibly depicts the rapid decrease in the catch of codfish, mackerel and lobsters within the past ten years, and shows that the depletion caused by the destructive methods of fishing has resulted in the ruination of the business, and concludes, as so many others have, that the remedy lies with Congress passing laws for the protection of the fisheries. In view of the precedents upon the subject and the repeated decisions of the courts that Congress has no authority over the matter, it is surprising that people of intelligence should so persistently fall into this error. The right of the State over the fisheries in waters within its borders has been the subject of frequent decisions of the courts of this country, and those decisions have been uniform and without conflict or variation in favor of the exclusive jurisdiction of the State authorities. These decisions are not confined to the State tribunals, but the most potent and forcible of them were enunciated by the Supreme Court of the United States. This unbroken line of decisions commences as early as 1823, with the case of Corfield v. Coryell, 4 Wash. C. C., 371, and 122 comes down to the recent case of Manchester v. Massa- chusetts, 139 U. S., 258, and embraces elaborate and exhaustive opinions of such eminent jurists as Washing- ton, Story, Marshall, Curtis, Waite, Bradley and Shaw. The right of the State to control its own fisheries is sustained by the courts as a property right, and as an incident to the ownership of the soil beneath the waters, which has never been ceded or delegated to the United States, and it is held that the State may exclude citizens of other States from using said fisheries and may regu- late their use at its direction. It has been sought again and again to uphold the right of Federal supervision of the fisheries in navigable waters under the grant of power to regulate commerce; but this has been uniformly and repeatedly overruled by the courts. The possession of a United States ‘fishing license” has been set up as a defense for the violation of State regulations; but it has never been sustained. Legislation by Congress has been urged on the ground that citizens of each State should have equal rights with the citizens of the State in which the waters were, of fishing for floating fish in any navigable waters, but the power of Congress over the matter has been uniformly questioned and ultimately denied. Such a bill was intro- duced at the first session of the Forty-ninth Congress, and was numbered H.R. 4690. It was referred to the Committee on Judiciary and was reported adversely. The report was drawn by that able constitutional lawyer, J. Randolph Tucker of Virginia. The conclusion of that report is, “that the navigable waters within each State belong to it, subject to the paramount right of naviga- tion, for the benefit of its own people, and it has the right to secure the exclusive right of fishing in them to its own citizens by virtue of their common property in said waters, and that the citizens of other States have no constitutional right, nor can Congress confer any, to participate in fishing in them.” This right of the State 123 is treated as a property right and not a mere privilege or benefit of citizenship. It is worse than useless then to look to Congress or to invoke the authority of the Federal Government, to pro- tect or control or to interfere in any way with the regu- lation of the fisheries within the States. It has no power, no authority, over them, and cannot possibly acquire any short of an amendment to the Constitution, which could never be obtained. It is a State matter, and the State alone must be looked to for its proper administration. The sooner this becomes generally known and recog- nized the sooner will people cease chasing this zguzs fatuus and direct their undivided attention to the proper authorities to correct the evils complained of, and by placing the duty and responsibility where it naturally and of right belongs, will more surely accomplish the desired results, Federal control of the commercial fisheries is not only unconstitutional and therefore impossible, and incapable of enforcement; but it is eminently undesirable and unnecessary. To properly frame the laws necessary for the regula- tion of fisheries and the protection of the fish from indis- criminate and exhaustive slaughter, requires intimate local knowledge of the innumerable differences of tem- perature, climate, fish food and habits, of varying spawn- ing periods and the feeding and spawning grounds, as well as the various and constantly changing methods and devices of the law breaker. These laws must have the moral support of local public opinion; they must be wisely drawn and promptly and discreetly enforced ; they must admit of proper discrimination to avoid hardship ; and any mistakes or defects be capable of prompt remedy, to adapt the penalties to the varying circum- stances. Defects in the fisheries laws to adapt them to the widely varying surroundings of particular localities will be more suitably remedied by a speedy appeal to the 124 State Legislature, than by recourse to a distant and overburdened Congress. The speedy and continuous vindication of the law against the repeated assaults by reckless and unprincipled fishermen, who are spurred on by the hope of great present profits, can far better be entrusted to numerous and easily accessible local tribu- nals than to distant and leisurely Federal courts. While uniformity of rules and regulations, which seems to many the highest and almost the sole desideratum, undoubtedly has its merits, it is manifest that a discriminating and readily adapted legislation, vigorously enforced by local officers, prompt to respond to public interests, will be more effective than general ironclad regulations made by a National Fish Commission and enforced by United States officials, practically irresponsible to local senti- ment. Practical experience has demonstrated that any- thing in the nature of police regulation is, in the long run, better left to the control of local authorities, admin- istered by local officers before local tribunals. Local self-government has long been recognized as the strong- est bulwark of popular sovereignty and the surest gua- rantee of our free institutions. In strange contrast to the persistent advocacy here of Federal control and supervision of the fisheries, is the course of our neighbors over the border. In Canada a determined effort is now being made to have the control of the tocal fisheries taken out of the hands of the Dominion and given over to the Provinces. In conclusion we commend the sentiment expressed and the course recommended in the resolutions adopted at the Hamilton meeting, quoted above, and which were formulated by the. Michigan Commission and_ spread upon its records soon after the adjournment of the last meeting of this Society, as a refutation on the part of the members of that commission of the action of this society in passing the resolution mentioned at the beginning of this article. 125 After the above was read, the following remarks were made: Mr. Doyte—I think the question should be brought up. We have been fighting the menhaden men as to the purse nets. We would like to get, as Judge Potter suggests, an expression of opinion in regard to the attempt of the menhaden people to take away from the State authorities the control of the State Fisheries. Mr. Bean—Before the Fisheries Society takes any action on this resolution of Judge Potter, I should like to say one thing of the United States Fish Commission. I do not say it officially. I have no right to speak for the commissioner, but I know, and I think it must be very well known to the gentlemen of the Fisheries Society, that this is not a bill which originated with the UnitedStates Fish Commission; the United States Fish Commission have no desire to control State fisheries, and I think it is per- fectly clear to our members that it is merely an effort on the part of the menhaden interests, or some other private fish interests, and we should not be misled by it. Mr. Doyre—I had no desire to reflect upon the United States Fish Commission. Mr. BEan—They are not connected with it in any way and disclaim any responsibility for it. Mr. DovLE—We know the United States Fish Com- mission are not pushing the bill. THE PAST AND FUTURE OF FISH CULTURE. 7 An Historical Glance at the Cultivation of the Waters. Under the above title Mr. C. Raveret-Wattel has sent an interesting paper to be read before the society to-day of which I give below an abstract. The paper was ori- ginally read at the conference of the National Acclima- tation Society, February 27th, 1891. The review of the history of fishculture given by the author while necessarily brief is very complete. Touch- ing lightly upon the efforts of the ancients to preserve their fisheries, he comes down to modern times and tells us how in the year 1840, during an exceptionally dry year, Joseph Remy, a Vosge fisherman, studied the habits of trout and took from them spawn and milt in a jar filled with water. The eggs proved fertile. This discovery having been made, Antoine Gehin contributed money to aid Remy in prosecuting his researches. Be- fore this, in 1758, one Jacobi, an officer of the Princi- pality of Lippi-Detmold, had fertilized the eggs of trout and salmon and had published his discovery in 1763, but it appears to have attracted no attention. These discoveries might have been entirely forgotten if it had not been that in 1848 a French naturalist, led by his scientific studies to consider the subject of the increase of fish, presented to the Academy of Sciences a work upon this question. M. de Quatrefages, whose learning and clear judgment enabled him to recognize the importance which the cultivation of the waters would one day take on, did not hesitate to state that it was possible to sow fish as grain is sown, and from this time he proposed to sow the sea. He pointed out the method by which the product of ponds could be regulated ; by which the eggs of fish could be used for the restocking 127 of streams; called attention to the opportunities which these methods offered for the acclimatation and dissemi- nation of species, and in a word traced out at that time a programme of fishcultural industry. As may be imag- ined, this memoir by M. de Quatrefages created the greatest interest. It was followed by the enthusiastic labors of M. Coste. The fishcultural establishment at Huningue was founded in 1852. The author discusses the difficulty which the early fishculturalists were obliged to overcome, and touches especially on the importance of fishways. Facts and sta- tistics with regard to fishculture in France, England, United States and Sweden are given, as well as estimates of the money value of fishculture in certain streams, especially as to the cultivation of the shad in American waters running into the Atlantic. He describes the fish- cars used in the United States and gives many other details familiar to most of us. The author closes by urging that France, which initiated the science of fish- culture, should not stand still and allow herself to be out- stripped by other nations. FISHWAYS. By W, H. RoceErs. Among the many causes for the decrease of fish in the rivers, as well as along the coasts of this and other coun- tries, the impassable milldam unquestionably occupies first place. A river, as to its production of fish. may be compared to a fruit tree, the larger the tree and the more numerous the branches (other things being equal), the greater the quantity of fruit it will produce; but to gir- dle it anywhere on its lower part, will effectually destroy its producing capabilities. An impassable dam thrown across the lower portion of a river, has precisely the same effect. as to the production of fish, and most effectually 128 destroys not only anadromous fish, but almost all. valu- able river fish as well—for in their search for food, and to propagate their species, almost all river fish are more or less migratory at certain seasons of the year. In proof of this, all sorts of fish inhabiting the Hud- son River are-seen passing up the fishway recently constructed on the Mechanicville dam, and I have seen them pass up many other fishways, both in Canada and in this country. The dam, moreover, by preventing the fish from ascending ae river, causes them to accumulate below the obstruction, where they fall an easy prey to the industrious poacher of every description. At this same point also, are found mill refuse, saw- dust or poisonous drugs thrown off by the mills and factories, which, from being in bad company, bear much of the odium fairly belonging to the more deadly dam. Sawdust and other wooden substances may be dis- missed as being comparatively harmless, while the poi- sonous drugs and dyes are usually confined to one side. of the river, the fish avoiding them by passing up along the opposite shore, while on rapid-running streams inter- sected with dams or falls, the water reoxygenates itself at a short distance below the point of contamination. So that, unquestionably, the dam and the poacher are the greatest hindrance to the improvement so much needed and sought after. Much has been and may be done in restocking de- pleted waters by the artificial propagation of fish, but where dams exist little improvement has been effected, especially in anadromous fishes, as they descend to the sea, but cannot return to their native rivers, or to the upper portion of them. ‘Therefore, to open the dams with proper fishways, is to add greatly to the value of pisciculture, as well as to directly increase the quantity of fish. Shad and river herring usually spawn in the still 129 waters; therefore, the artificial ponds produced by the construction of dams will have the effect of improving the rivers, as to the production of these fish, once the dams are provided with good, passable fishways; and to overcome natural falls, is to allow all anadromous fishes to reach long stretches of inland waters, hereto- fore inaccessible—a matter of vast importance. Such considerations as these add immensely to the ‘importance and value of fishways, especially when it is remembered that the improvement of the river fish- eries, which send out to the bays and harbors their annual supply of young fish, brings the coast and sea- fish near the shores, and into the estuaries and bays, where they can be more readily caught. Did the people generally more fully understand the facts in relation to this matter, and its inevitable effect upon food as well as game fish supply, I doubt if in five years there would be a dam or fall in this coun- try, unprovided with a proper fishway. Facts and statistics are at hand to clearly prove all I say here, but time forbids their reproduction. I may say, however, in a general way, that all the rivers in Canada that have been provided with good fishways for a number of years, are filling up with fish at a rapid rate—so much so that in many places the peo- ple living in the neighborhoods are surprised. A proper device to fully reconcile water power and the fisheries, has been long and industriously sought by parties and countries interested, but chiefly by those who have had little experience or practical knowledge of the nature of the many difficulties to be overcome. Many inducements have been held out with a view to calling out the inventive genius of mankind, and the accumulation of plans and models at the London Inter- national Fisheries Exposition, were numbered by scores; but two only of which received any notice at the hands of the judges whose duty it was to pass upon their merits. 130 A fishway, to be successful, must be one that can be applied to all forms of dams and natural falls, one that will provide a slow, natural stream at all heights of water, with the entrance for the fish close to the obstruction and placed where they will readily find it, and one which will not injure the water power on the smallest stream. But after such a device has been produced, much experience in the location and con- struction is necessary, or failure is almost sure to fol- low; because almost all dams and falls have difficulties to be overcome, entirely their own, which must be met by the proper application of the fishway to the obstruc- tion. To employ an inexperienced man to do this work, is to invite failure in a great majority of cases. Large sums of money have been lost by the adoption of such mistaken methods to master difficulties which only an expert can accomplish, and such is the nature of the obstacles to be overcome, that even a man of experience may sometimes make fatal mistakes. So far as a decision of the merits of any form of fishways is concerned, the proofs must be supplied by the fish themselves, in the rivers at the dams, for gold medals and other prizes given at expositions and world’s fairs are liable to be awarded upon theoretical devices which too often fail when put to actual test. In this as in most other cases, an ounce of fact is worth more than a pound of theory. The Rogers’ Fishway, which is now in_ successful operation on many dams and falls in Canada as well as in this country, fully and completely meets all the foregoing conditions and requirements. Its width, five feet; depth, two to three feet; form of internal con- struction and resultant, slow and unbroken stream, are each and all indispensible in a successful fishery; in these respects it is different from any other in use on either side of the Atlantic and can be constructed at moderate cost so as to successfully pass any sort of 131 river fish over dams or falls of any height and to effectually resist ice, drift logs, trees or stumps, ete. It cannot be carried away by freshets, unless the dam itself first gives way. It is also constructed so as nut to interfere with the permanency of the dam or efficiency of the water power and only in rare cases is it neces- sary to cut the obstruction or to remove a stone in it. This fishway is not a mere invention, thought out by a theorist who had but a vague idea of the numerous obstacles to be mastered, but is rather a growth, a detailed mastery of all the difficulties met with down in the rivers amongst the fish and the dams. It is the outcome of a quarter of a century’s personal experience, close observation and anxious effort. It leaves nothing to be desired in a successful fishway, which it is pos- sible to produce, therefore there is no need in longer spending money in fruitless experiments on theoretical and useless devices as in the past, but address ourselves to the more practical work of passing the fish up the stream as fast as possible. After the paper was read Mr. Gilbert said: Within the last twenty or twenty-five years there have been a great many fish-ways invented and devices to get fish up the rivers. JI have no doubt many of them have been successful. The State of Massachusetts put in a fish-way at Holyoke. We have also had very expensive fish-ways constructed at Lawrence, Manchester and all the falls. Yet the results, as given by the Massachusetts Fish Com- mission in their last report in relation to shad, which says, ‘‘ Returns show a catch of only 12,451 shad taken inland waters, a decrease from last year of over 2,000,” are not encouraging. Why is this? If we have these fish-ways, on which the State has expended large sums of money to build and maintain, and yet we have the mor- tifying result that the shad are decreasing, why is it? 132 The fact is that while the State has expended thousands of dollars to get the fish up, they have never expended one cent to get them down. They have overlooked that. On streams which are not given to manufacture it is very easy to get up and go down over the falls. But on rivers like the Merrimac and the Connecticut, used for manu- facturing purposes, how are those fish to get down, especially during the season when these young shad go to saltwater, which is along in July and August, when the waters of the Merrimac and Connecticut are low. It is true a little water may run in the fish-way; but it is the habit of all these fish in descending and ascending a river to go where the strongest current is through the wheels. The fish of the Connecticut and the Merrimac, ninety-five per cent of them I venture to say, go through the wheels. And what are those wheels? They are a tub and wheel. And a fish an inch anda half long can no more go through that wheel than he can go through a meat chopper. Nothing can go through. What are you going to do about it? There is only one thing, and that-is to stop the manufacturing or else take out the wheels. Years ago, when the Mill act was passed, overshot wheels were universally in use. Now, a fish can go through an over- shot wheel without any danger. It is a very important consideration how you are going to get fish down. At the Russell mill, where I have been employed for a num- ber of years, rather than to put a fish-way in, they carry the fish up, cart them up and put them into the river above. There are millions hatched there but there is not one goes down through alive. Mr. Rocers—My experience of a quarter of a century in this matter is that young fish have no difficulty in find- ing their way down. Herrings and shad go down is Sep- tember in that country ; during that month, all of that month. There is abundance of water going over the tops of the dams, and fish can go down wherever water goes. I have investigated the wheel idea, and I have known 133 young fish to go through by thousands, and go through alive; through the (tribune) wheel, which is a wheel that receives its power from specific gravity, and the fish goes through as a part of the water without being hurt at all, unless they happen to strike and get a little stunned, but they come to life when they get below. This is my ex- perience. I bow to any facts the gentleman knows, of course, but I assure you there is no difficulty in a young fish going down any river in this country, Mr. Forp—I think the greatest works are those that have been recently accomplished jointly by the New York and Pennsylvania Fish Commissions in the fish dam at Lackawaxen over the Delaware River. They are the Rogers Fish-ways and by them we have been enabled to allow the shad to ascend the Delaware River. They are most efficacious. They have sent the shad up nearly a hundred miles, above the Lackawaxen dam, and that they come down again, I can say from personal observa- tion. Not only the large shad come down the fish-ways, but during the summer time, in August, September and October when the young shad comes down, the river almost glitters with the shad leaping from the water. There is no trouble about shad coming down the fish- way. They have had that much more spawning ground added, nearly a hundred miles more of water. They have gone up the fish-ways in such numbers, that in the next stage up above in New York State, in the report made by the New York Commission in 1891, this is spoken of as a solid mass of fish waiting under the dam to get up, and the report calls upon the New York Fish Commission to put fish-ways up there to let them go further. Dr. Hupson asks the height of the dam. Mr. Forp—I think about eight feet. The fish-ways work to a charm.. We have lots of them in the dam across the Susquehanna River, a very long dam, and shad have been going in considerable numbers forty to fifty 134 miles above that dam. It is the purpose of the commis- sion to add fish-way after fish-way until we can finally send the fish up again to New York State line, where for- merly they were caught in larger quantities than they are caught in the Delaware to-day. Mr. Rocers—At Mechanicville Dam, a stone struc- ture sixteen feet high, fish were jumping there, salmon, trying to get over. I saw six in one pool close to the dam; Two of them would weigh thirty pounds. Those salmon, as soon as the fishway was done, went right up. My son went through the fish-way from bottom to top and found fish in every apartment. Last year a large number of salmon were caught away up at Baker's Falls, fifty miles above the dam. I also put one in the Northumberland dam, thirty miles above, and they went through that. Mr. Cary—Do you know positively that shad ever pass up through? It is well known that salmon will go everywhere that shad will. Mr. Rocers—If they can send shad over the Troy Dam, they could over the Mechanicville Dam. I have put shad over a dam in Canada seventeen feet high. Mr. Cary—lIs it positively known that they did pass up! Mr. Rocers—Yes. Mr. PowreLt—About the young shad being destroyed going tothe sea. It has been a good deal of discourage- ment to our commission. We have four hundred miles of fish water, useless for commercial purposes, full of islands. We try to propagate and protect those fish. » We have been trying for years to get the State of Mary- land to join with us to pass laws uniform to our State. We are making a great effort to keep those fish there from passing out. They have twelve miles and we have four hundred. It is very discouraging for us to raise those fish and let those people catch them in twelve miles. In regards to these fish-ways, I have a letter in my 135 hand which I wrote to a party to know whether they had any fish caught at their station (Newport). This letter states that there have been only seven caught on account of the flood, all small male shad about two and a half pounds apiece. Mr. Rogers I presume will explain that from the fact that the females follow the male. Mr. Rocers—They got them in a dip net. Shad keep out in the current and these dip nets are on the shore ; that would account for the small quantity caught. The male fish both in salmon and shad, go ahead of the females ; the females come up later. THE SUSQUEHANNA. ifs PAST, PRESENT AND. FUTURE: By A. F. CLapp. Tue Pennsylvania Canal Company commenced build- ing dams as feeders to its system about the year 1826. Previous to that time the Susquehanna River had been one of the most prolific for at least three species of ana- dromous fishes, the shad, the herring and the striped bass or rock fish, as good fishes of commercial value as any of the Atlantic coast series, and besides these there was an abundance of non-migratory species which fur- nished ample food for the dwellers along and in the Vicinity of its shores. From the time of the erecting of these obstructions commenced the gradual decline of all species and the total loss to all dwellers above of all the migratory tribes except the eel, which found its way through rifts and crevices. Soon other factors of de- struction became operative, notably soils washed in from cultivated lands, and later, the immense quantities of debris from the anthracite coal fields which now covers the bed of the river in all pools and eddies, to the almost total destruction of the natural spawning grounds and 136 life of the eggs, from the Lackawanna coal fields at Scranton on the North Branch to the bay at Havre de Grace. The time is also not far distant when the same condition will obtain in the West Branch, from the bi- tuminous field of clearfield and above, unless a halt is called, and all this deleterious matter is made some other disposition of. As far as relates to soil wash, it seems unavoidable, but proper legislation and enforcement of the laws could remedy the other. The sulphur impreg- nated water from the mines acts only locally and is gradually desseminated and purified, but to the abate- ment of the dumping of mine refuse into the streams tributary to the main river must we look if the waters are ever to be again rehabilitated. The dragging of seines over the spawning beds, catching the gavid fish from off their nests and covering up the spawn already deposited has been another fruitful source of depletion. There are laws to deal with this feature, and the fault lies in the proper enforcement. Up until the early sev- enties when artificial propagation and restocking was in- troduced, the supply of all classes of food fish had grad- ually diminished until the waters was almost barren. Striped bass, shad and herring had disappeared with the erection of the dams, while the pike perch, locally termed the Susquehanna salmon, the pickerel (Zs. vez.) the yellow perch, the sunfish and catfish, the most es- teemed of the non-migratory fishes, had almost entirely disappeared. With the organization of our fisheries commission, about 1870, began a practical regeneration. The black bass, as a new variety, has proved wonderfully prolific, and several others of the smaller perch family have obtained a fast hold. These waters seem _ best adapted to the precoids, and greater efforts in stocking with this species ought to be persisted in. The reintro- duction of wall-eyed pike or pike perch has been mani- festing itself in increased numbers very perceptibly. When fish propagation assumed important proportions, 137 we had hoped much for this river as a fit habitat for the Pacific salmon, and many hundred thousands of fry were placed in the upper Sinnemahoning and other tribu- taries only to remain a year or two as smolts and parr and then disappear. Only one adult specimen did I ever see or hear of, and that came ashore here dead, killed probably in some log jam above during the June freshet of 1889. Thisspecimen would, I estimated, weigh about thirty pounds and was in prime condition, too much putrefied to remove from the water, but was an un- doubted quinnat salmon. I gave an account of it at the time to FoRREST AND STREAM and to J. H. Bean at Washington, but saw afterward that he was probably in Alaska, as I got no acknowledgment of my letter. Trout (SaZ. Font.) were common in the early years of the pres-nt century, but as the settlements increased, the forests became depleted, the water roiled and tempera- ture increased, they decamped for cooler and purer springs. I have been familiar with this river for forty years and have followed its changed conditions with much interest and with increasing alarm unless the public can be roused up to effective effort for its preservation. The future of our noble river, with its broad expanse, looks gloomy in- deed, and not only the Susquehanna, but is it not true of most of our American rivers? And what can we hope for but depletion unless intelligent public sentiment can be aroused toarrest the destructive influences. Our Fisheries Society is doing its best and exerting a healthy influence, and it is with the view and hope of discussion, and efforts that may eventually lead to more important results, that I respectfully submit this paper for your consideration. SunBury, Pa., May 16. 138 The following discussion took place : Mr. PowELtt—We have been asking for the last three or four months to get an opinion as to coal countries, and the people who are running this water into the streams, and whether it would be advisable for us to make a test case against one or more of these companies. But up to this time I cannot get any official opinion. I[ was invited by this society to prepare a paper on the subject, but could not get the data together to do so as quickly as I would like to. It has got to be one of the most important questions. It appears in certain coun- ties north of us here that there has been a waste of coal dust, possibly for years—fifty years. Somebody devises a patent to wash this coal dust out, pass water through it, and selling it for fifty or sixty cents per ton right on the ground. We get all the water and they get all this cheap coal. It goes further than that: I can name a dam near Harrisburg where sand diggers are digging fine coal out of the bottom of the river. It not only keeps the water back, but it is destroying all the food that the large fish live on. Possibly for two or three or four hundred yards from shore, the bottom of this river is covered with this coal dust. It is going to be an import- ant question; I have had a number of letters from other States in regard to it. AMERICAN SALMON AND OTHER FOOD FISHES. By Pror. BusHrop W. James, A.M., M.D., Philadelphia, Pa. While all who are interested in the great question of the protection of the seals in Bering Sea are waiting anxiously to hear of the final arbitration decision, we may turn a while to the study of the interest whose promise seems to be great in regard to both money mak- ing and the more plentiful and less costly supply of a very desirable food, the Salmon. Western salmon eggs have been carried in safety to the rivers on the eastern coast, and no doubt they will soon yield abundantly ; the shad fisheries in the Delaware have been saved from dissolution by artificial hatching, the return having been raised from 60,000 to 500,000 within a very few years. German carp and English brown trout take very kind- ly to our smaller streams and sluiced ponds; there is no doubt that they would become plentiful if they were properly protected; but from the very small boy with his string and crooked pin to the more nobly equipped man of leisure, all seem to think that each alone has the privelege to take fish from whatever quarter in which he sees they are abundant, and it is just possible that a de- pleted private pond is the victim of some such marauder instead of having been visited by kingfishers, water snakes, or other disastrous visitants. The number of enemies from whom fish suffer has always been so great that nothing but their extreme productiveness could have saved them from total extinction long ago. And when we think of the popularity of weir and seine fishing, it is wonderful that there are any of the more desirable kinds remaining! even in the Karluk River, on Kadiak Island, Alaska, the most productive salmon fishing ground in in the United States, there is a perceptible decrease in the number of fish caught in late years, which is ac- 140 counted for by the use of the large seines, which not only make immense hauls of fish useful for canning, but they catch the breeding fish which they prevent from ascending the minor streams for the purpose of spawn- ing; thus not only destroying the fish that is not good for food, but preventing the propagation of the species. Other valuable fish are caught with the salmon and ruth- lessly cast aside to die on the beach, where they lie decomposing by thousands. In Pennsylvania the laws have prohibited weir fishing, and the increasing numbers of fish in our streams show the wisdom of the commission in obtaining such protection. If the United States Commissioner could secure such lawful safeguard for the salmon of Alaska, it would insure an almost interminable future for the vast industry in the territory, whose can- neries would one day be able to supply the world. The planting of fish fry is an undertaking which re- quires wisdom in the selection of the waters for the purpose, and a careful regard to the habits of the finny occupants, A voracious variety of fish for instance, will sometimes clear all other species from the pond or stream in which they are placed; black bass has this reputation, therefore the folly of trying to raise trout with the rapacious varieties in the same stream is apparent. Perhaps there is no industry that makes more ample return than that of catching and preparing fish for the markets. In Alaska the canneries yield an immense profit, and they deal in salmon alone, the yield of halibut, cod, and other kinds of fish is not included in the vast industry ; but Alaska herring and smelts are said to be particularly fine and no doubt they will soon attract capitalists to set up a strong rivalry with other parts of the world in their production for the markets. The supplies of cod, mackerel and herring from the eastern coast has so long been an institution, that re- marks concerning them seem superfluous; perhaps too, no one can fully appreciate the great importance of these 141 fisheries to the inhabitants of the eastern coast, from Labrador to Nantucket, unless it were possible to cut off entirely for a time, the yields of fish from the bay of Fundy to Long Island Sound, we could not estimate how many of the citizens are dependent upon the products of the sea. As it is, the alarming diminution of the catches of mackerel, cod and lobster in those eastern states has gone far towards ruining some of the minor towns along the coast. The greed of speculators, who saw how well the fish- ermen were able to support themselves and their families with their primitive modes of obtaining their stock for trade, and who introduced purse-seines, drag nets, trawls, and weirs, thereby catching enormous quantities of fishes in all stages of their existence, and with blind fool hardi- ness glutting the markets—have bestowed upon the born fishers a trial, from which the older members of the com- munity can never recover, by draining the bays and coves of the larger and more valuable of all kinds of fishes. Those which their devices did not catch have been so frightened that they have left the runs; and unless the United States laws interfere with decisive and immediate exercise of their power, and forbid the use of those modes of fishing; both old and young inhabitants will forsake the coast, take up with some other industry in order to gain a living; or, worse still, they will leave their native land and go to the Canadian shores, from which even now there are great quantities of fish imported into this country. But let us hope that no such disaster may befall our honest fishermen and our eastern states ; instead, we must strive by every measure to increase the numbers and varieties of the beautiful food fishes, and to have laws enforced for their permanent protection. Perhaps because there is a greater proportion of water than Jand on the face of the earth, there is no more uni- versal article of food than fish in existence. Among the 142 most refined epicures, or on the tables of the poorest classes in nearly every country, fishes of various kinds take an important part. The daintily prepared salmon or trout, followed by other luxuries in one household, is represented by mackerel or herring in another, with perhaps no other addition to its savoriness than its rival staple, bread. In fact there are few people of any grade who are not fond of some one of the silvery denizens of the water; and from humanity down to the smallest warm blooded animal, from the greatest mammal of the sea to the smaller fishes; even reptiles are fond of fish and all wage a constant war upon their numbers; and how many, both human and animal, derive their whole sustenance from this one source alone. There was once a prevalent idea that fish had a peculiarly nutritive effect upon the brain; science does not substan- tiate that notion, but undoubtedly in a piscatorial diet there must be considerable health and strength. One attribute of such nutriment seems to be tenacity of life. Among the Esquimos, for instance, there are tribes who live exclusively on fish, seal meat and oil, and a few ber- ries ; they have no salt. The fish is broiled when fresh, eaten raw when dried, and some even consider putrid fish heads a most delicious dainty ; they live in underground huts with no ventilation of which to speak ; they fairly reek of fish, and yet some of them live to quite a good age. ‘This goes to prove that there is a vast amount of nutrition in.the food, and that the careful propagation of the best food fishes of the world is a noble and necessary employment. Among all the finny tribes, salmon and cod of the larger fishes, trout and mackerel of the smaller, seem to be most important. from the salmon fisheries of the north-west alone there is derived an enormous profit; Columbia River salmon has long been classed as the finest in the world, but Alaska is steadily advancing until it has already come into favor equal in many ways with the 143 Columbia. Some writers say they are the same fish, others claim distinction, but they are both very fine, and that the canneries have acquired a prominent industry in the territory, none will dispute. Of Alaska salmon there are five prominent varieties, each with special points of favor among the natives. The Krnc Satmon is the finest of all in flavor but its color is not so beautifully tempting as that of some other varieties. Its average weight is twentv pounds, though some have been known to attain a weight of seventy- five or eighty pounds. The king salmon is claimed to be the identical Columbia River salmon, whose repute is world wide, and which grow to an enormous size. I have seen specimens along the Columbia River at the canneries, which weighed about eighty pounds and look- ed as large as an ordinary sized man. In Alaska, salmon fishing and packing has not attained very great commercial importance as yet, because this fish runs most numerously in the Yokon River, and its tributaries, which are so distant. from the markets as to make the expense too great for the undertaking, No doubt an early day there will be canneries established and good modes of transfer furnished to ambitious mer- chants; and when the Columbia fails to give such vast supplies, the Yokon will provide for all deficiencies in that quarter. During the running season the natives are wild with delight ; they feast upon the fresh fish, but do not store it as they do some of the families, perhaps because it can- not be caught in the great quantities that they are able to obtain of the other kinds. The greatest drawback to the king salmon for importance in the markets is that it is difficult to catch them in large numbers on account of the rough waters in which they run. The Doc Saumon is a favorite with the natives, who make feasts, dance and make gifts to the river Gods who permit them to come in such quantities for their delec- L44 tation. These and the hump-back variety are the kinds most used for drying and preserving for winter use, as well as for barter with the northern traders. The dog salmon is found in nearly every river in Alaska, even very far north, and its extreme abundance is one trait for which it is favored by the Alaskans, though it is much smaller than some other kinds. The SILtvER SALMON is not so important as those. before mentioned, though they are used for canning in some places. They arrive late in the season, which may account in a great measure for their being less popular The supply is generally laid in, and the hungry natives have sated themselves before their tardy arrival; therefore they are not so eagerly sought. This is one of the nest building fishes, whose curious habits have been the study of scientists. They actually wear their snouts away in pushing the stone in place for their nests. The Hump-Back Satmon is the smallest of the Alas- kan salmon, and the most abundant. These are the fishes of which it has been said they are more numerous than the drops of water in which they live! The natives catch them with sticks filled with nails, which they plunge into the schools, and by which they get enormous returns by simply scraping them up and flinging them ashore to the women who are in waiting, and to whom the duty is entrusted to disembowl them and prepare them for drying. The wildest excitement greets their coming, and the people simply gorge tiemselves with the fat products of their fishing. This fish is another that is yearly abundant and widespread over the territory, but it has comparatively no commercial value, because of its being remarkable for its rapid decomposition on expo- sure to the air. The Rep Savmon is the one now holding the most merchantable importance of all the salmon tribe; and in this case, as in many others, beauty has supplanted merit, for the flesh is really not so palatable as that of the king 145 or the silver salmon, but its rich red color has become so desirable that other kinds are filling subordinate places for the present, at least. These poor little fishes have many difficulties to sur- mount: They run in very turbulent waters, they are sought after by man and beast, they have been threat- ened with extermination by the excessive greed of those who would like to take the season’s catch in one great haul. And yet they are very abundant so far. Just here comes the opportunity for the question of the pro- tection of the fish—not only of the salmon of the great North-west, but of the beautiful food fishes of our own immediate streams and rivers as well. I note a successful exchange of edible fish with Great Britain, with apparent favorable results. Now, if foreign fish will thrive in interchange, | think there should be wider diffusion of the varieties in the waters of the United States. Alaska is not limited to salmon alone, though it is most useful of all; there are trout, greyling, white fish, and many other small fishes; and the black cod, the ne geon, and the famous halibut ; all grow to perfection i in the pure, snow-fed waters of the territory. The value of the salmon alone is wonderful, and _ it may be increased with no apparent limit for,years. In 1889 there were thirty-six canneries in operation, repre- senting an outlay of four millions of dollars. A vast sum, but the product of the year was estimated at three millions of dollars. Certainly a good interest for the money expended. ; While we are speaking of the enormous products and profits of the West, we must not forget the steady, plod- ding industry of the East, where for years the sturdy fishers have gained an honest living. They smile at the wild stories of the North-western fisheries as if they thought it was but a flash in the business that will soon settle to a quiet, rather uncertain status such as their 146 own; and so it will, in shorter time than it required for the coast of Maine to attain its present quietude, if the wholesale slaughter of all sorts and conditions of the defenceless creatures is not discontinued. Fishculture, and the protection of the breeding fish and of the young fry are becoming more decidedly urgent each year; but the Government has taken the matter under its own protection, and now we need no longer fear the extinction of some of the favorite finny races. I think there is no sport more truly widespread than that of the fisherman. It passes through all grades of society, from the dainty lady who wants to fish but screams at the sight of the necessary worm, to the sturdy aleut who only rejoices in it from its positive necessity for the sustenance of his family ; yet one could envy him the myriads of pretty, silvery creatures waiting for his barbed stick, while our Eastern rivers hold such chary beauties that no coaxing with dainty morsels can win them to the hook. And yet the fascination returns peri- odically. The fisherman takes his basket, his hook and line, or flies—as the case may require—he starts off hope- fully, his appetite already sharpened with the bright pro- mise of the day’s sport; and if he returns with nothing but a very hungry stomach, very delapidated clothing, and a weight of weariness upon him, he will forget it all and be ready for the next season of trout or salmon! North, South, East and West, it is the same. And as if in indulgence to the love of the sport, there is nothing so prolific as fish. Produced by the million every year, they are surely sent for some great good. From the coarse grained cod of the north-east, to the delicious salmon of the north-west; from the bulky hal- ibut to the slender speckled trout; from the northern mackerel to the highly flavored shad; all have their votaries ; all take their places among the most valuable living productions of the world; why then should they not be carried from one part of the Union to another? 147 Why should they not be protected from destruction? Artificial hatching has so far been successful so that there need be no limit to the production of graceful fishes that may swarm our streams and reward the patient fisherman for his hours of anxious waiting and his days of disap- pointment. And now a few words concerning the diseases of sal- mon: Apart from all other enemies to which salmon are subjected, even in the pure waters of Alaska, nearly all are infested with a parasite, of which collections were made by M. McDonald, United States Fish Commis- sioner, who was appointed to visit and investigate the fisheries of Alaska; his report states that they were not able to classify the species, therefore it cannot be deter- mined whether they are hurtful to the fish or not. Pro- bably in artificial hatching the fish may be freed from the parasite, and then by comparison it can be found whether they are detrimental to the quality of the flesh or not. The Encyclopaedia Britannica notes a peculiar fungoid growth in the salmon of the rivers in Great Britain which has destroyed many of the fish since its discovery in 1877. I find no notice of a similar disease having been found among the salmon of this country, but it would be well if all who are interested in pisciculture would watch and report the first appearance of any fun- gus growth among their stock. The disease takes the form of ulcerations, which eat away the skin, producing inflammation and sloughing, bleeding sores. By examination it is proved that the fungus is the cause, and not the result of any other disease. The fungus bears such close resemblance to the sapro- legnie ferax which is found upon dead house-flies and other decaying animal or vegetable matter, that it has been mentioned as identical with it; but it is not fully proven; neither is there proof that it propagates so quickly among the salmon as to become epidemic. 148 There seems to be a wide field for investigation in regard to this fungus, and it would be advisable for all who are engaged in the business to watch closely and give opportunities for a thorough study, if any disease of the kind threatens the fish under his supervision or observation, The following discussion took place: Mr. Cary—I would like to ask one question in regard to the paper: If I heard correctly you allude to German carp as being a predacious or destructive fish to other fishes ? Mr. James—Where they cannot get their own food. It is so stated in the report I read some time ago, that the German carp would live on its own kind of food— which is vegetable food—but rather than die, it will con- sume its own kind. Mr. Cary—In connection with this, there was an article published in Ohio, alluding to this fact, speaking very much against German carp as being predacious fish. I have had a good deal of experience with the German carp in the State of Georgia. We have no evidence that they are to any extent. Ifa large number of carp were confined in a small space, I suppose they would eat one another sooner than perish; but I don’t think unless I have sure positive proof of it, that German carp is pre- dacious. Mr. James—Where they cannot find sufficient vege- table food. They are a rapidly growing fish and require a great deal of food to make them grow in that way; and that is the statement that I got from an article which led me to introduce it in the paper. They are not usually a voracious fish as such. Mr. Marner—lI think the ichthyological portion of that paper on the Alaskan salmon is exceedingly good. I am glad as an ichthyologist that the subject came up. Dr. Bean published something on it I believe. A NATIONAL SALMON PARK. By LIvINGSTON STONE. Who would have thought thirty years ago that the creation of a National Park in this country would be the means of rescuing the buffalo from extinction? Who thought then that anything was needed to rescue the buffalo? The buffalo roamed in myriads over the plains and mountain slopes of the central portions of the United States and were so innumerable that, with the exception of a few far-sighted persons, no one thought that this noble race of animals was even in danger. The supply seemed inexhaustible and the species at least safe from extinction. How soon we found out our mistake, and how suddenly the change came. The note of alarm had hardly been sounded long enough to be distinctly comprehended over the country, before the buffalo was gone—all gone prac- tically, except a few straggling survivors which, if they had not found refuge in Yellowstone Park, would have been gone too, long before this. The Yellowstone National Park saved them. It saved the wild race from extinction, and if nothing else should ever be accom- plished by the creation of the Park, this alone would, in the writer’s estimation, justify its existence. But if anyone had said thirty years ago, “Let us form a National Park in the buffalo region for a protection and refuge for the buffalo,” the proposition would have been laughed down from one end of the country to the other. It would have been thought a most ridiculous expedient, a scheme too foolish and crazy to be even seriously en- tertained. Nevertheless, the creation of the National Park has accomplished this very object, and has been, I think it may be safely said, the only means of accom- plishing this most important object, the preservation of the American buffalo. Now what this paper is going to propose will appear, 150 doubtless, just as ridiculous, just as foolish and crazy, as the formation of a park for the preservation of the buf- falo would have been thought thirty years ago. It is nothing less than the creation of a national park for the preservation of our salmon. I hear already from all directions the question, “What do the salmon need a park for? Are there not plenty of places of safety for them already in all the rivers and streams of this country, not to mention the pathless ocean where man cannot follow them ?” It looks so at first sight, I admit; but let us try to find these places of safety if they exist, and then see how it looks. We certainly cannot find them on the Atlantic coast, where the scanty yield of the only two American salmon rivers—the Kennebec and Penobscot—is only a drop in the bucket compared with the total consumption of salmon. Passing over to the Pacific coast we find only the Sacramento, the Columbia and the lesser streams on the Washington and Oregon coast, and in all these the salmon are about as safe as the fur seals were last year in Behring Sea. I will say from my personal knowledge that not only is every contrivance employed that human ingenuity can devise to destroy the salmon of our West coast rivers, but more surely destructive, more fatal than all is the slow but inexorable march of those destroying agencies of human progress, before which the salmon must surely disappear as did the buffalo of the plains and the Indian of California. The helpless salmon’s life is gripped be- tween these two forces—the murderous greed of the fish- ermen and the white man’s advancing civilization—and what hope is there for the salmoninthe end? Protective laws and artificial breeding are able to hold the first in check, but nothing can stop the last. To substantiate this statement, which may seem exag- gerated, let me inquire what it was that destroyed the salmon of the Hudson, the Connecticut, the Merrimac 151 and the various smaller rivers of New England, where they used to be exceedingly abundant? It was not over- fishing that did it. If the excessive fishing had been all there was to contend with, a few simple laws would have been sufficient to preserve some remnants, at least, of the race. It was not the fishing, it was the growth of the country, as it is commonly called, the increase of the population, necessarily bringing with it the development of the various industries by which communities live and become prosperous. It was the mills, the dams, the steamboats, the manufacturers injurious to the water, and similar causes, which, first making the streams more and more uninhabitable for the salmon, finally exterminated them altogether. In short, it was the growth of the country and not the fishing which really set a bound to the habitations of the salmon on the Atlantic coast. Let me illustrate this same statement more in detail by presenting the testimony of the salmon rivers of the Pacific coast. Take for an example the Sacramento. When the first rush of Gold seekers came to California in 1840, every tributary to the Sacramento was a fruitful spawning ground for salmon and into every tributary countless shoals of salmon hastened every summer to deposit their eggs. When the writer went to California in 1872, only twenty- three years later, not one single tributary of the Sacra- mento of any account was a spawning ground for the salmon except the McCloud and Pit rivers in the extreme northern part of the State, where the hostility of the In- dians had kept white men out. It was not fishing by any means that had caused the disappearance of the salmon, for the miners did very little fishing in those times; but it was the debris from the quartz mines which drove the salmon out, ruining the spawning grounds and rendering the river uninhabitable for the salmon. This was in 1872. In 1878 the writer took 14,000,000 of salmon eggs from the summer run at the U. S. Sal- / 152 mon Station on the McCloud river. In 1883 the South- ern Pacific Railroad Co. (then the Central Pacific) ex- tended their line northward up the Little Sacramento, crossing the mouth of Pit river, into which the McCloud empties a mile or two above. So disastrous to the salmon was the effect of the road building along the Little Sacramento and the mouth of the Pit, that that year it was with great difficulty and only by very hard work that we succeeded in getting barely 1,000,000 salmon eggs, and the next year Prof. Baird, in disgust at what he considered the unpardonable indifference of the Californians, discontinued taking salmon eggs at this station. Since that time sawmills of immense capacity have been erected at the head of the Little Sacramento and the McCloud, and have done very. effective work in increasing the now alarming scarcity of the spawning salmon of the Sacramento. I think these instances are sufficient to show that what the friends of the salmon have to fear more than over- fishing, is the growth or development of the country always attendant upon an increasing population, but the fatal consequences of which to the salmon it is impossible toavoid. Nothing can stop the growth and development of the country, which are fatal to the salmon. For instance, there was no power in the world that could have prevented the mining on the Feather, the Yuba, the American Fork or the other spawning streams of the salmon; nothing could have stopped the building of the railroad up the Little Sacramento or the erection of the Sawmills on the upper McCloud. They came along naturally and inevitably in the march of events, and they could not be withstood; and nothing was left for the salmon but to suffer the consequence and disappear as by a decree of fate. Now actual fishing in the salmon streams can be regu- lated by law and rendered comparatively harmless, but the country will continue to grow more and more populous and 153 the fatal march of civilization will proceed as irresistibly as ever. That cannot be held back, and unsafe as the salmon are now in our Atlantic and Pacific coasts rivers, they will become more and more unsafe every year; all of which goes to show that there is no safe place for the salmon within the limits of the United States proper. This leaves us only Alaska. Now, how is it with the salmon streams of Alaska? Not even there are the salmon safe. Countless myriads of salmon formerly filled all the rivers and streams of the long Alaskan coast, and they were nearly 2,000 miles from the destroying hand of civilized man, but they were not safe even on those distant shores. The ubiquitous canneryman found them, and he already has his grip on the best and most fruitful of the Alaskan rivers. ‘The pressure of the world’s demand on the world’s supply of canned salmon renders it necessary for the salmon canner to occupy more distant and less fruitful fields every year, and it is only a question of time when all the Alaskan salmon streams are given over to the canneries, and when that time comes no one will claim, I think, that the salmon are safe in Alaska. One or two illustrations are sufficient. The Karluk River on Kodiak Island is probably the most wonderful salmon river in the world. On Aug. 2, 1889, the cannery nets caught on Karluk beach at the mouth of the river, 153,000 salmon by actual count. A short time after, the writer went up the Karluk River in a bidarka—the skin boat of the natives—expecting to see myriads of salmon spawning and thousands on their journey to the spawn- ing grounds, but instead of the wonderful sight we an- ticipated, our whole party, I think, saw less than a dozen in the river till we reached the Jower spawning grounds, and then to our astonishment we saw only a few scatter- ing fish spawning, such as one might expect to see in the most commonplace salmon river in the world; 153.000 salmon caught in one day at the mouth of the river, and none to speak of going up the river to reproduce their 154 species. Every one can draw his own inference, The fact is significant enough. On another river, a large one, the Nushagak, where vast numbers of salmon were taken at the mouth one summer for canning, we were told that the succeeding winter the natives living up the river were brought to the verge of starvation because the salmon which they had always depended on for their winter’s food were so scarce. Of the thousands and thousands of salmon that usually ascend the river to spawn, not enough spawners escaped the nets at the mouth to keep the natives on the upper waters from starving. This fact speaks for itself also. So much for the safety of salmon in Alaska in general, but it would yet seem that on the uninhabitable shores of the Arctic Ocean the salmon might find a place of refuge, but not even there can they stay unmolested, for parties were planning three years ago, the writer was told, to establish canneries on the affluents of the frigid and for- bidding Arctic. So we see that our salmon are not safe even in Alaska, their last refuge, and if not there, they are not safe anywhere within the limits of our broad land. But now the question comes up, ‘ Will not protective laws and artificial breeding make the salmon secure enough?” My answer is that good laws and artificial breeding will do a good deal toward it, but not enough. Good laws can prevent overfishing, but no laws can arrest the encroachments on the salmon rivers of in- creasing populations and their consequent fatal results to the salmon. No laws could possibly have been enacted which for instance would have stopped the manufactur- ing enterprises on the Connecticut, or the vast water traffic of the great metropolis at the mouth of the Hud- son which doubtless drove the salmon out of these rivers. Protective laws may regulate the salmon fishing of the Sacramento, but no laws can stop the mining, the 155 logging and the railroad building that are destroying the spawning grounds of the tributaries of the Sacramento. It is not in the power of law enactments to save the sal- mon from all their dangers. Artificial breeding can do a great deal, and has done a great deal, but it cannot be relied upon for a certainty. In the first place it is very uncertain where one can find a suitable place for hatching salmon. ‘The writer traveled over four thousand miles up and down the Columbia and its tributaries, from the Continental divide to the Pacific coast looking for a good place for salmon hatch- ing, first in 1877 for the Oregon and Washington cannery- men, and afterwards in 1883 for the U. S. Fish Commis- sion, and found only two places in that great stretch of country which were suitable, one on the Clackamas River where the writer built a hatching station, and the other on the Little Spokane a few miles from Spokane Falls, which is still unoccupied. There is in all the great State of California but one stream suitable for salmon hatching on a large scale, and on this stream, strange as it seems, there is but one spot that meets all the requirements of the case, and that is the place that the writer selected and built upon, on the McCloud River in 1872, and named Baird, in honor of the distinguished Commissioner, under whose direction the work was done. Allow me to add by way of conformation that subse- quently the State Fish Commission of California, after hunting all over the State for another place for hatching salmon, have given it up and now get their supply of salmon eggs from the Government station at Baird. The above instances illustrate the difficulty of finding suitable places for hatching salmon on a large scale, and not only is it not easy to find such places, but they can- not be relied upon to a certainty when they are found, for they are always in danger from logging, mining, railroad building, lumber manufacturing and _ other 156 causes which yearly become more imminent and danger- ous as the country gets settled up and the population in- creases, and which threaten at any time to destroy their efficiency. We must come to the conclusion then that even with the help and support of protective laws and _ artificial breeding, our salmon, like the buffalo of thirty years ago, are not safe. The destroying agencies of advancing civ- ilization drove the buffalo to the last ditch, so to speak, and then the last survivors, or almost the last, were slain. They were obliged from sheer necessity to come to feed. where from all directions the hand of man was raised against them. Whether they turned to the north or to the south, to the east or to the west, they went to their certain death, and in an incredibly short space of _time they practically disappeared. The story of our salmon is analogous. They are obliged to come inland to breed. They are compelled from sheer necessity to come up the rivers into the very midst of their human enemies. They cannot stay in the ocean like other fishes of the sea, where they are safe from the hand of man, but they must necessarily come, one might say, into his very grasp, and, like the buffalo, whether they turn to the north, south, east or west, they go into the very jaws of death; for what hope is there for a sal- mon to escape after he has entered a river, if man chooses to employ his most effective agencies for his capture? There is none. The salmon is doomed. There is no alter of refuge for the salmon in this country any more than there was for the buffalo. Ought not something be done, then? Ought this state of things to continue? The salmon of the United States are one of our most valuable posessions. As a matter of ordinary prudence, ought not the country to have some place, if it is possible, where the salmon can come and go in safety? If a stock raiser saw that his cattle were daily diminishing because they had no spot where they were 157 safe from beasts of prey, what kind of a man would we think he was if he did not very soon fix a place where they would be safe, We should. to draw it mildly, think he was very im- provident and negligent. Is it any less improvident and negligent for this country not to provide a place for its rapidly diminishing salmon where they will be safe? It seems to the writer that not a day ought to be lost, but that if it is possible to provide a place where our salmon can resort unharmed and remain safely their allotted time, it should be given them without hesitation. If there is such an asylum of refuge within our borders, by all means secure it for the salmon and let the salmon have it for an eternal heritage. Is there such a place within the limits and jurisdiction of the United States? The writer can say from personal knowledge that there is one place at least. Most fortun- ately for us Americans there is in our Alaskan possessions just such a place as is wanted—probably more than one— and so exceptionately fortunate is America in this respect that it is not likely that this side of the frozen and unin- habited shores of the Arctic, it can be duplicated many times in the possessions of all the nations of the earth combined, which significant circumstance, allow me to add in passing, goes to show how near the world has reached the extreme limit of its salmon supply. The locality which the writer has in mind is an Island in the North Pacific about 750 miles nearly due west of Sitka. Its name is Afognak, and it is the northernmost of the two largest islands of the group, called the Kadiak Islands. It lies just north of latitude 58° and between 152° and 153° west longitude. It is a small island. prob- ably not over fifty miles across at its widest part, but there are several streams flowing from various points of the island to the surrounding ocean. and at the proper season contain salmon innumerable. It is no exaggeration to say that salmon swarm up these streams in countless 158 myriads. When the writer was on the island in 1880, the salmon was so thick in the streams that it was absolutely necessary in fording them to kick the salmon out of the way to avoid stumbling over them. I know that this story is.an old salmon chestnut, but it illustrates as well as any- thing the wonderful abundance of salmon in the Afognak streams; and it can be easily believed when it is remem- bered that about a month earlier 153,000 salmon were caught in one day at the mouth of the Karluk, which is a river only 6oft. wide where it empties into the ocean. But there is no need of consuming time in proving the abundance of salmon at Afognak Island. It is a matter of record. The salmon are there in as great numbers as could be wished. All the varieties which also inhabit the Pacific Ocean come to Afognak. The list is as follows ; it is a royal catalogue : 1. The red salmon, the ‘‘blue back” of the Columbia (Oncorhynchus ner ka). 2. The king salmon, the “ quinnat” or “spring salmon” of the Columbia (Oxcorhynchus chourca). , 3. The silver salmon, the “ silversides”’ of the Columbia (Oncorhynchus kisutch). 4. The humpback salmon (Oxcorhynchus gorbuscha). 5. The dog salmon (Oxcorhynchus keta). 6. The steelhead, the ‘‘square tailed trout” of the tribu- taries of the Columbia (Salmo gazrdnert, Salmo trunca- tus). 2 The Dolly Varden (Salvelznus malma). It is easy to see what a paradise for salmon this island is, and what a magnificent place of safety it would be if it were set aside for a national park where the salmon could always hereafter be unmolested. But the abundance and variety of its salmon are not the only recommenda- tions that Afognak Island has for a national park. It has several others which may be enumerated as fol- lows: 1. The island is inhabitable all the year round, with a 159 comparatively even temperature. Although so far north. the winter's cold is not excessive, probably not equalling that of parts of New England. It is cooler than New England in the summer, it is true, but there is much less variation of temperature between summer and winter. 2. The rivers of Afognak still exist in all their original purity and fruitfulness. No overfishing has left them barren. No mills have polluted their primeval purity. No railroads have frightened the salmon away from them. No mining has disturbed their native spawn- ing grounds. As salmon rivers they are still in their original glory. ‘To quote a not inappropriate line of Byron, ‘Such as Creation’s dawn beheld” them, they are rolling now. Consequently nothing need be done nor any expense incurred in putting the rivers in order for asylums of refuge for the salmon. 3. No complications now exist or can come up in future, in regard to land titles in this island. The United States Government owns the land already like the rest of Alaska, by direct purchase from Russia, and has never parted with any of its exclusive rights of ownership. No State or Territory, or company or individual owns an acre of it. Consequently the U. S. Government can set aside the island for any purpose whatever, without interfering with any prior rights or titles, or incurring any risk of litigation.* Alaska is already one great reservation. 4. The island will probably never be wanted for any thing else. The summer season is so short that no crops can be raised there, and it is not likely that for many generations, if ever, the land will be wanted by perma- nent settlers, and it is now inhabited only by a few Aleuts and half breed families who would not be inter- fered with. There would be no injustice done to indi. viduals by making a reservation of the island. * There are two canneries operating in the southern part of the island, but there would probably not be great difficulty in making satisfactory arrangements with them, 160 5. Last but not least, artificial hatching can be insti-, tuted there at any time, if it is ever thought best, and on a vast scale if desired; and unlimited numbers of the eggs of the various kinds of salmon noted above, can be ob- tained for distribution and sent to all other parts of the country where they may be needed. The above considerations seem to indicate that Afognak Island possesses all the qualification required for a place of safety for our Pacific Ocean salmon without presenting any objections to its being reserved by the Federal Govy- ernment for salmon, or in other words, converted into a National Salmon Park. The writer, however, would not urge the claims of Afognak or any other place to this distinction as against those of any locality that may be found to be better fitted for it. This island has been brought forward merely as showing that one place at least is known that would answer the purposes of a salmon park. There are doubt- less others in our Alaskan possessions. There are possibly better ones. Ifa better place can be found, let us take it. If not, let us take Afognak Island ; but at all events let some place be selected and set aside by the authority of the National Government. If not Afognak Island, let it be some other place. Provide some refuge for the salmon, and provide it quickly, before complications arise which may make it impracticable, or at least very difficult. Nowisthetime. Delays are dangerous. Some unforeseen difficulties may come up which we do not dream of now, any more than we did a few years ago of logging on the Clackamas, or railroad building on the upper Sacramento. If we procrastinate and put off our rescuing mission too long, it may be too late to do any good. After the rivers are ruined and the salmon are gone they cannot be reclaimed. Exaggerated as the statement seems, it is nevertheless true that all the power of the United States cannot restore the salmon to the rivers after the work of 161 destruction has been completed. The familiar nursery thyme about the egg applies here with peculiar fitness : ‘“‘Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall, Humpty Dumpty had a great fall. All the king’s horses and all the king’s men Could not set Humpty as before.”’ That is the whole thing, so to speak, in an eggshell. After the salmon rivers are ruined all the king’s horses and all the king’s men, that is to say, all the power of the government, ‘cannot set them as before.” Let us act then at once and try to do something for the salmon before it is too late. Dangerous complica- tions may come suddenly upon us which we cannot foresee. How little we foresaw the danger to the buffalo and the fur seals. How suddenly the disastrous results came. Even if not impracticable it may cost large sums of money to do hereafter what may be done now for nothing. No expense may be incurred at present. All that is required is to have Afognak Island or some other suitable place set aside by national authority as Gen. Grant set aside the McCloud River Reservation during his administration, and it can be left to further events to decide whether it is expedient to expend any money on the reservation, a subject that can be safely left, we all know, in the hands of our efficient Commissioner of Fish and Fisheries. There seems to be no impropriety in the United States having a national salmon park, but on the contrary it appears eminently proper that a great natural salmon country like ours should have set apart some safe repository and fruitful breeding grounds for this noble fish. Consider for a moment what the salmon has done for us, and then think how mercilessly we have treated him. Our salmon has been to us a source of national revenue, enjoyment and pride, and what return have we meted out to him? He has been hunted pitilessly with hooks and spears, with all kinds of nets and pounds, with wheels and guns and dynamite, and there is not a cubic foot of 162 water in the whole country where he can rest in safety. The moment he comes in from the ocean he meets the gill nets and the pounds at the mouth of the river, the sweep seines further up, and hook everywhere, and at last on his breeding grounds, which at least ought to be sacred to him, he encounters the pitchforks of the white man and the spears of the Indian. Let us now at the eleventh hour, take pity on our long- persecuted salmon and do him the poor and tardy justice of giving him, in our broad land that he has done so much for, one place where he can come and go unmolested and where he can rest in safety. Allow me to add in closing that it seems to me highly appropriate that this society, which represents with such intelligence and ability all the fishing interests of every kind in this country, should take the initiative in a matter in which those interests are so closely concerned. The writer trusts that it will, and ventures to predict that, if its efforts in that direction should happily be rewarded by the creation of a national salmon park, it would become an enduring monument to the usefulness of the Society that would last as long as the Nation lasts. EARLY HISTORY OF THE FISHERIES ON THE GREAT CARES. By HERSCHEL WHITAKER. Stretching away to the northward from the low Laurentian hills of New York to the trap-rock cliffs of Minnesota, for a distance of sixteen hundred miles, in a hydrographic basin embracing an area of one hundred and seventy-five thousand square miles, lie the Great Lakes of the Northwest, the largest bodies of. fresh water upon the globe. Upon their bosoms float vast fleets which carry the rich products of prairie, forest and mine, while from their depths the fisherman gathers the rich bounties that nature has provided for the sustenance of man. The vessels which constantly pass and repass are not freighted with ores from the mines of Golconda nor with spices from Far Cathay, but carry lumber from Saginaw, iron from Escanaba, copper from Hancock, grain from Duluth, provisions from Chicago, and cereals from the vast prairie lands of the Dakotas. Since the early days of the French occupation of the Northwest, when the lilies of France waved over all the territory lying north of the St. Lawrence and Ohio and west of the Alleghanies, these lakes have been the great highway of intercommunication between the East and West. The Jesuit missionary filled with holy zeal de- parted from Montreal, the seat of French power in America, in his bark canoe, manned by his Indian con- verts, for the trackless wilds of the far West to raise the cross and establish his feeble mission among savage tribes. Following him came the fur trader with his canoe and courrier du bors, who day after day traversed these lakes and their connecting rivers to reach some specially designated place where he might exchange his tawdry 164 gewgaws, beads and cheap merchandise with the Indian for the valuable skins of beaver and otter. The cavalier, explorer and adventurer traveled over their trackless wastes of water, enduring hardship and fatigue, living upon the bounties of nature, pushing his way to what he hoped would be a discovery of a path to the Indies, fortune and fame. Each of these in his own way has left testimony of the bountiful way in which nature has stocked these waters with desirable food, and the belief of all concurred that there was an unfailing supply for man for all time, to be had for the tak- ing. The habits of the tribes bordering these lakes whose main reliance for food was upon the fishes that inhabited them, had caused them to resort to certain favorable localities upon the lakes at the proper season of the year to take fish for present wants and for future use. In time these points became their chief dwelling places for the greater portion of the year, and with the advent of the fur trader they became the principal places of barter. Such localities as the Straits of Mackinaw, Sault Ste. Marie, Green Bay, Chequamegon, Detroit and Chicago became thus early known, and the history of these places as told by the early traveler shows that nature seemed to have lavished her bounties upon aboriginal man in the stocking of her waters with the most edible of fishes to provide for his wants. Let us call a few of the earlier voyagers to give their testimony upon the abundance of fish in these wa- ters. Hennepin says in his Travels in 1675: “There is a very abundant fishery of several kinds of fish at the mouth of the Niagara River, among which is the whitefish, admir- ably good, with which you might supply one of the best cities of Europe. “At Mackinaw the Griffin lay in the harbor amid one hundred and twenty canoes going and coming from 165 taking the whitefish, which the Indians catch in nets in from fifteen to twenty fathoms of water, and without which they could not subsist at all. “At the Sault the Indians subsist by hunting stags, moose or elk and some beaver, and by the whitefish which is very good and is found in great abundance, but this fish is very difficult to take to all but these Indians, who are trained to it from childhood.” He says, on his return from his first voyage up the lakes, and after the loss of the Griffin: “On reaching Lake Conti (Lake Erie) near the mouth of the Detroit River, the soldiers who were in canoes killed with their swords and with their axes more than thirty stur- geons which came to spawn on the banks of the lake.” Charlevoix, in his voyage to North America, 1721, in speaking of Lake St. Clair, the smallest lake of the chain which lies between Lake Erie and Lake Huron: ‘“ The islands in the river seemed placed on purpose for the pleasure of the prospect, and the river and the lake abound in fish. Were it not for the Hurons at Detroit the other tribes of Indians would starve. This is in the flat lands thereabout which would furnish them sufficient subsistence though it were cultivated ever so little, but they can subsist upon the fish of the river which are plentiful. We entered the Lake Huron where we soon had the pleasure of fishing for sturgeon.” Speaking of Lake Superior, he said: “The Indians from gratitude for the plentiful fish with which this lake supplies them, and from the respect which its vast extent inspires, have made a sort of divinity of it.” Speaking of Michillimackinas, he says: ‘‘ The Indians live entirely by fishing, and there is perhaps no place in the world where they are in greater plenty. The most common sort of fish in the three lakes which discharge themselves into these straights are the herring, the carp, the goldfish, the pike, the sturgeon, the ‘attikumaig or whitefish, and especially the trout. There are three sorts of these 166 taken, among which is one of monstrous size, and in So great quantities that the Indian with his spear will strike to the number of fifty sometimes in the space of three hours, but the most famous of all is the whitefish, and nothing of the fish kind can exceed it.” In speaking of his trip from Mackinaw to Green Bay, he says: ““We coasted the north shore of the Straits of Mackinaw and finally came to the Manistique River, which is a beautiful stream abounding in fish, especially the sturgeon.” Captain John Carver, of the Provincial troops of America, in his three years’ travels throughout the inte- rior parts of North America, says: “Lake Superior abounds with a variety of fish. The principal and best are the trout and sturgeon, which may be caught at all times in the season in the greatest abundance. The trout in general weigh about twelve pounds, but some are caught that exceed fifty. Besides this a species of whitefish is taken in great quantities here that resemble a shad in their shape, but they are rather thicker and less bony. They are about four pounds each in weight and are of a delicious taste. The best way of catching this fish is with a net, but the trout might be taken at all times with the hook. There are likewise many sorts of smaller fish in great plenty here, and which may be taken with ease. Among these is a sort resembling the herring that are generally made use of as a bait for the trout.” Speaking of the falls of Ste. Marie, he says: “ Nature has formed a most commodious station for catching the fish which are to be found here in immense quantities. Persons standing on the rocks that are adjacent to it may take with dipping nets about the months of Septem- ber and October, the whitefish before mentioned at that season, together with several other species. They crowd up to this spot in such amazing shoals that enough may be taken to supply, when properly cured, those inhabitants 167 throughout the year. The fish of Lake Huron are much the same as those in Lake Superior.” Carver arrived at Mackinaw at the beginning of No- vember, 1767, after having been to the Mississippi River and up that stream as far as the Falls of St. Anthony. He says: “We passed the winter very pleasantly at the Straits of Mackinaw. One of their amusements at this time was to fish through the ice for trout. Though the Straits were covered with ice we found means to make holes through it, and letting down a strong line fifteen yards in length to which we fixed three or four hooks baited with the small fish before described, we frequently caught two at atime of forty pounds weight each, but the common size is from ten to twenty pounds. The method of preserving them during the three months the winter generally lasts, is by hanging them up in the air, and in one night they will be frozen so hard that they will keep as well as though they were cured by salt.” This may properly be considered as the first authentic notice of preserving fish by the freezing process, and while it is crude it still was as effective as the work now done by the immense freezers found in almost every im- portant town on the lakes. George Heriot, Deputy Postmaster General of British North America, in his book of travels, published in 1807, says of Mackinaw that the Indians of that locality “catch herring, whitefish and trout, the trout being from four to five feet in length, some of which are seventy pounds in weight. This fish is bred in Lake Michigan and is known by the name of Mackinaw trout, and affords a most de- licious food.” Of Green Bay he says: “There isa vil- lage composed of natives at the mouth of this river who employ themselves in fishing.” At the Sault Ste. Marie, ‘““At the bottom of the rapids and among their billows which foam with ceaseless im- petuosity, innumerable quantities of excellent fish may be taken from the spring until winter. The species 168 which is found in great abundance is denominated by the savages attikumaig or whitefish. The Mackinaw trout and pickerel are likewise caught here. These afford a principal means of subsistence to a number of the native tribes.” , He also speaks of the method of taking the whitefish at this place in the rapids at the foot of the falls, which, singularly enough, is followed by the Indians to this day, and from its peculiarity deserves special men- tion. I give his own words: ‘“No small degree of address as well as strength is em- ployed by these savages in catching these fish. They stand in an erect attitude in a birch canoe, and even amid the billows they push with force to the bottom of the waters a long pole, at the end of which is fixed a hoop with a net in the form of a bag, into which the fish is constrained to enter. They watch it with the eye when it glides among the rocks, quickly ensnaring it and drag- ging it into the canoe. In conducting this fishing much practice is required, as an inexperienced person may, by the efforts which he is obliged to make, overset the canoe and inevitably perish. The convenience of having fish in such abundance attracts to this situation during the summer several neighboring tribes, who are all of an erratic disposition and-too indolent ‘for the toils of hus- bandry. They therefore support themselves by the chase in winter and by fishing in the summer. “The Otter Nation inhabit the rocky caverns on Lake Huron, where they are sheltered by a labyrinth of islands and capes. They subsist on Indian corn and fish and the proceeds of the chase. While the women and children collect berries the men are occupied in darting stur- geon.” Mr. Henry R. Schoolcraft from the time of the estab- lishment of the military post at Sault Ste. Marie, was the United States Indian Agent at this point. He was aman of culture and literary ability, and one of the most pro- 169 lific contributors to the literature concerning the habits, characteristics and language of the North American Indians. He says of the whitefishing at the Sault in Ha20 - ‘“No place in America has been so justly celebrated as a locality for taking this really fine and delicate fish as St. Marie’s Falls. This fish resorts here in great num- bers, and is in season after the autumnal equinox, and continued so until the ice begins to run. It is wor- thy the attention of ichthyologists. It is a remarkable but not singular fact in its natural history, that it is per- petually found in the attitude of ascending at these falls. It is taken only in the swift water at the foot of the last leap or descent. Into this swift water the Indians push their canoes. It requires great skill and dexterity for this. The fishing canoe is of small size and is steered by the man in the stern. The fisherman takes his stand in the bow, sometimes bestriding the vessel, having a scap net in his hand. This net is made of strong twine, open at the top like an entomologist’s. When the canoe has been run into the uppermost rapids and a school of fish is seen below or alongside, he dextrously puts down his net and having swooped upon a number of fish, instantly reverses it in the water, whips it up and discharges its contents into the conoe. ‘This he repeats until the canoe is loaded, when he shoots out of the tail of the rapids and makes for the shore. The fish will average three pounds, but individuals are sometimes taken two or three times that weight. Itisa great resource of the Indians and of the French, and of the poor generally at these falls who eat it with never-ceasing appetite. It is also a standing dish with all.” Listen to his tribute to the edible character of the whitefish : 170 All friends to good living by tureen or dish, Concur in exalting this prince of a fish, So fine in a platter, so tempting a fry, So rich in a gridiron, so sweet in a pie, That even before it the salmon must fail, And that luscious donne bouche of the land beaver’s tail. * * * * * ‘Tis a morsel alike for the gourmand or faster, While white as a tablet of pure alabaster, Its beauty or flavor no person can doubt When seen in the water or tasted without, And all the dispute that opinicn ere makes, Of this king of lake fishes, this ‘‘ deer of the lakes,”’ Regard not its choiceness to ponder or sup, But the best mode of dressing and serving it up. Sheldon, Disturnell, Strickland, Kohl, Hubbard and others all unite in saying that nature here seems to have lavished her bounties with no niggardly hand, so pro- fusely are these lakes stocked with fish. From the time of the discovery of the lakes down to the time of the establishment of the Hudson Bay Fur Company, these inexhaustible supplies were drawn upon only for the subsistence of the Indian tribes and the voyagers, but gradually they became, to a small extent, an article of commerce, the surplus being saited and sold in somewhat inconsiderate quantities. During all this time the northwestern territory was looked upon as a source from which valuable furs could be obtained, and but little attention was paid to the fisheries of the Great Lakes beyond what the immediate wants of those who lived upon them or near them demanded. Little is known at the early time of which I speak with reference to the fisheries of Lake Erie, because of its situation it was but little frequented by the early ex- plorers and fur-traders. Good reason existed for this condition of affairs. The blood-thirsty and cruel Iro- quois, the most adventurous and warlike Indian tribe which ever inhabited the continent, held undisputed pos- session of all that wilderness lying about Lakes Ontario and Erie and adjacent to the NiagaraRiver, which was a key of approach to the latter lake. 171 The rivalry between the Dutch fur-traders of New York and those of the French was exceedingly intense in their attempts to control the fur trade of the North- west. The Iroquois were incited by the Dutch to throw every obstacle possible in the way of encroaching advances by the French traders and colonists. For many years the Iroquois, who by reason of their situation acted as intermediaries between the further western tribes of Indians, controlling in their own interests the fur trade between the Dutch and these tribes, fiercely resented all attempts at interference in this trade by the French. As aresult of their attitude the great waterway commu- nication between Montreal, the seat of the French fur trade, and the Great Northwestern lakes was closed by the Iroquois, and communication with the upper lakes was made by way of the Ottawa and the French Rivers into Georgian Bay and from thence into lakes Huron, Michigan and Superior. Meagre, however, as the information is that we have concerning the condition of the fisheries on Lake Erie at this early period, such information as we have shows beyond question that fish were exceedingly plentiful, especially at the Put-in-Bay Islands and Sandusky Bay. Dr. McCallum of Dunville, Ontario, at a meeting of the International Fish Conference, held at Hamilton last winter, exhibited to the meeting two crude shellfish hooks which were found on Point au Pelee, in the Prov- ince of Ontario on the North Shore of Lake Erie. These hooks were presumably made from the shell of the fresh- water mussel. In appearance they resemble the rude hooks employed for taking fish by the Esquimaux and other aboriginal types. The shank and the point were in two separate pieces, having holes drilled through them by which they could be attached to each other with thongs, the hook itself being barbless. Their form and construction indicated plainly that if the aboriginal man was compelled to sustain life by means of fish taken 172 with such an implement, the fish must have been exceed- ingly plentiful in this lake. Facts at hand would seem to indicate that Lake Erie was in these early days boun- tifully stocked with fish, and although it has been fished constantly for a very long period, it still yields immense quantities of valuable commercial fish. Blois, speaking of the condition of the fisheries as early as 1835, in his ‘“‘Gazeteer of Michigan,” says: “Their quantities are surprising, and apparently so inexhaustible as to warrant the belief that were a population of millions to inhabit the lake shores they would furnish ample sup- plies of this article of food without any sensible diminu- tion.” Looking at the matter from that period of time the writer was unquestionably warranted in his assumption. But Blois could not have apprehended at that time that the census of 1890 would show that in the six States sur- rounding the Great Lakes there was a population con- stituting more than one-sixth of the entire population of the country. Neither could he anticipate that the meth- ° ods of preserving fish would, within thirty years from the date of this writing, make it not only possible but profitable for fishermen to follow their calling almost continuously during the entire year. Michigan statistics show that in 1830 the quantity of fish marketed in the State amounted to 8,ooo barrels valued at $40,000. In 1836 the whole number of barrels taken amounted to 11,400. In 1837, to 13,500 barrels of the value of $125,800. Of this quantity one-fourth was consumed in the State and the rest was shipped to Ohiv, New York and Penn- sylvania. | It will be observed that the reports of the catch and value of the commercial fish upon the Great Lakes are somewhat meagre and desultory. The report of the Detroit Board of Trade for 1857 shows that there 173 were between 80,000 and 100,000 barrels of fish taken in that year, valued at $640,000. In 1885 the reports gathered by the Michigan State Board of Fish Commissioners show that the value of the commercial fish taken in the State was in value about $1,500,000 at wholesale price. In considering such statistics as we have, we must take into account the uncertainty and unreliability that must necessarily prevail in their collection because of the want of thoroughness and completeness with which the work was done in the earlier years. So, too, we must consider in comparing one year with another the varying condi- tions of seasons, which is a potent factor. Severe storms may prevail one year, while the next year may be an ex- ceedingly favorable one, and, therefore, their reliability is much impaired and the basis upon which we must make comparisons is at best unsatisfactory. CAUSES OF DECAY. Until about the year 1852 the fishing industry on the lakes was prosecuted almost entirely with gill-nets. Since, then the gill-net fishing has continually increased until now the length of the gill-nets fished in Michigan waters alone, according to the last reliable statistics within our reach, amounts to 1,725 miles. About the year 1850 the pound or trap-net was intro- duced into the Great Lakes. Its use conclusively shows that it has been one of the most destructive of fishing de- vices, and is responsible for the great decay of the fish- eries which has been observable during the last twenty years. Concerning the introduction of the pound-net into the Great Lakes, I am indebted to Mr. L. Anthony of San- dusky, O., for the following facts: Pound-net fishing was first introduced by Messrs. Spencer and Courtland, two Connecticut men, at San- dusky, O., in the year 1850. The fishing with these nets 174 was at first done in shoal water in the bays and rivers in a depth of about ro or 12 feet. In 1852 Mr. L. Anthony of Sandusky, in the fall of that year began fishing with small bay nets, which was the first attempt. This fishing was done at Locust Point, between Toledo, O., and Port Clinton, Ottawa County, in the same State, inadepth of 9 feet of water. The fish were plentiful and the catch was remarkably large. He salted fifteen hundred half barrels of whitefish during this season, besides selling large quantities to the farmers, who came to the fisheries from long distances. In the fall of 1854, Mr. Spencer, the gentleman form- erly alluded to, together with other parties, including Mr. Anthony, conceived the idea that this plan of fishing could be successfully done in the deeper waters of the Jakes. The first attempts was made by Mr. Anthony of deep water pound-net fishing, in the spring of 1855, at Kelly’s Island and Put-in-Bay, in Lake Erie, Ohio, with marked success. In the year 1854 he did his first pound-net fishing in Lake Huron at North Thunder Bay, fishing in 33 feet of water; fish were caught here in large quantities. There has also been some small fishing done near Lexington, Mich., which was not successful. In the year 1856 Charles Ruggles and Capt. James Bennett fished with deep water pound-nets in Ham- mond’s Bay,on the south shore of Lake Huron, and also on the north shore of Lake Michigan. At that time this was the largest and most successful fishery in the whole country. At the Thunder Bay fishery, on Lake Huron, Mr. Anthony caught in one net in twenty-four hours, four hundred of half barrels of whitefish. There were not one hundred pounds of other varieties caught on this occasion. In 1865 he commenced fishing with deep water pound- nets at the Apostle Island, Madeline Island, Presque Isle, and Sand Island in Ashland Bay, off Bayfied Point, 175 in Lake Superior, and these fisheries resulted in a profit- able investment. From this date on the pound-net fishing increased beyond all conception. It is not infrequently the case that pound-nets are set in gangs reaching out from the shore a distance of three or or four or more miles, and the destruction of fish by this method of fishing is immense. Unquestionably the fish so taken are superior to fish taken by the gill-nets because they are preserved alive until the nets are raised, but it takes everything, great and small. No fishculturist should condemn the taking of fish if the fishing were done with judgment and with a due regard for the future. The iniquitous feature of the business is that the cupidity of the fisherman overcomes his better judgment, and he takes from the water large numbers of small and immature fish that are of little or no value as merchant- able fish. The result of this system of fishing is most destructive, tons upon tons of fish being thus taken which have never spawned, whereas if they were permitted to remain in the water to reproduce their kind, artificial methods would be greatly aided. About the year 1868, Mr. William Davis of Detroit, patented a freezing apparatus for the preservation of fish. In that year about sixty tons were frozen in De- troit, and seventy-five tons in Toledo. This method of preserving fish was not very kindly received at first, but gradually grew in favor. Previous to this time, during favorable seasons, large quantities of fish were taken over and above the needs of present consumption, and the only means of preserving them was by the salting process, which considerably reduced their value. Grad- ually the freezing process grew in favor, and it was found by experience that fish might be frozen and held in that condition for any length of time. The result has been that in almost every important town upon the lakes 176 which is the seat of a fishing industry, there are to-day one or more freezers with varying capacities, most of which are exceedingly large. Their erection has givena great impetus to the fishing industry. While formerly the lake fishing was prosecuted mainly in the spawning season, the methods of fishing have so changed by reason of the opportunity afforded by the freezer system of hold- ing the fish for any length of time that now and for a number of years past fishing has been carried on in nearly every month of the year, and is only interfered with by — the rigor of the season when nature closes the waters for perhaps a month or so. Reliable statistics furnished show that the following quantities of fish were frozen from 1869 to 1884: In 1869, 400 tons; 1871, 600 tons; in 1872, 600 tons; in 1873, 700 tons; in 1874, 600 tons; in 1875, 800 tons; in 1876, 1,100 tons; in 1877, 1,200 tons; in 1878, 900 tons; in 1879, I,100 tons; in 1880, 700 tons; in 1881, 1,100 tons; in 1882, 1,300 tons; in 1883, 1,450 tons; in 1884, 1,600 tons. No information is at hand for the seven years from 1884 to 1892, during which years it is fair to be pre- sumed from the general knowledge we have on the sub- ject, these amounts were very largely increased. The average number of tons per year for the fifteen years amounts to 1,000 tons. Averaging these fish at 24% pounds weight apiece, the number of fish caught on an average for each year and frozen would be 800,000, and for the entire period of fifteen years it would amount to 12,000,000 fish. This takes into consideration only the fish that were frozen, and my opinion is, that if there is any error in the above figures, they are much below the actual amount. But by far the greater quantity of fish taken are sent to market, iced, fresh, but not frozen. I believe it is within reason to say that the frozen fish will not represent more than one-fifth of the total quantity taken, 177 When we consider this large number of fish which are being constantly taken from these lakes, we can better appreciate the serious inroads which are being made upon the supply; and when we add to this the wanton destruc- tion of millions of small and immature fish taken that are never given an opportunity to spawn, and when we further consider the large number of gravid females, the roe of which is lost by this capture, we can begin to appreciate the problem that is set before fishculturists to restore this great loss. MEANS oF ARREST OF WASTE AND RESTORATION. If the wealth of the waters of the Great Lakes is to be maintained, nothing can be clearer than that this great waste, which has been going on for more than a hundred years and is increasing, must be arrested. There are two methods by which this may be effected: 1. By a liberal and lavish stocking of the waters. 2. By the enforcement of just protective laws prevent- ing the taking and marketing of unmerchantable, young and immature fish. As to the first point each State must act for itself in protecting its own interests in the fisheries. Weak and erratic efforts made now and then to make good the loss by the planting of a few million fish will not do. With the means at hand and with the information we now have as to fishculture, and with the small outlay of money necessary to carry on the work of artificial pro- pagation, each State should see for itself that every female fish taken during the spawning season in its waters shall have her eggs taken from her, fecundated and after being hatched, properly planted; there is no good reason why this should not be done, and if the States whose in- terests are involved will take immediate steps to carry out this line of policy, they will have taken a step in the proper direction for the maintenance of their fisheries. As to protective laws, let me say this: No laws should 178 be passed which should rob the fishermen of the right to follow his calling within legitimate means. If our work means anything it means that we are engaged in an undertaking which, if properly conducted, will result in a direct benefit to the fishermen and incidentally in great benefit to the people at Jarge in the maintenance of a cheap and wholesome food. With this understanding of the conditions, fishermen should be willing to submit to such just and necessary laws as may be required to pre- vent destruction of young fish which are of no special value for their purposes, and the destruction of which means the ultimate decadence and extinction of their means of livelihood. So faras uniformity in laws can be secured regulating the fishing in the different States, they should be made uniform, but experience seems to indicate that the fault hes not in the number or effective- ness of statutes, but in the inadequacy of the means which have been used to enforce them. Most of these laws are inherently defective because of the attempt to build up a warden system by counties, allowing the compensation of wardens to be fixed by the boards of supervisors, who, as a rule, will grant no com- pensation, or one which is grossly inadequate, which results in making the warden system of no effect. New York has without doubt the best warden law of any State in the Union, because the pay of her wardens is sure and fixed. The ideal law would be one giving authority to the Board of Commissioners of each State to appoint a chief warden with such deputies as he might require for a proper enforcement of the laws, whose compensation should be sufficient to secure the services of good men who should be paid by the State. The State might be districted, but in that event each warden could exercise the functions of his office in some district other than the one in which he resides, thereby removing from local influence in the administration of his duty. 179 The States should make and enforce their own laws. No other power can do it so effectually and well. Their legislatures are familiar with the necessities of their States, are quick to respond to the wants of different localities, and by frequent contact with their constituen- cies know their wants. If a general awakening of the lake States can be had | as to the necessity of proper action to maintain their fisheries as above suggested, there is no reason why the great food supply furnished by these waters may not be maintained at least in their present value, with a hope of future increase. IMPREGNATING EGGS OF THE RAINBOW TROUT. By Wm. F. Pace, The object of this paper is to bring to the notice of this Society, and through it to the notice of fishculturists in general, a subject which has not received that degree of attention its importance would warrant; the wish is to arouse interest sufficient to lead to a correct and, if possible, a practical solution of the difficulty of impreg- nating the eggs of the rainbow trout. On page 819 of the report of the U. S. Commission of Fish and Fisheries for 1882, under the report of Mr. Frank N. Clark, is the earliest record of a peculiar inci- dent occurring in the work of impregnating the eggs of the rainbow trout. This peculiarity can not be better described than by quoting Mr. Clark’s report ; “Our facilities being first-class and having been uni- “formly successful in the propagation of trout, not ex- “cepting the preliminary experiments with rainbow trout “for four seasons, I had confidently expected to embry- “onize from one to two hundred thousand eggs from the “stock of z~zdeuws hatched and grown at this station; but “we succeeded in getting only 45,000 eggs (many of the 180 “females failing to mature their spawn) and in fertilizing “but 15 per cent of these, resulting in a hatch of 6,400 “fish. The parent fish, of both sexes, were and still are “perfectly normal, so far as conduct and appearances “would indicate. The trouble, however, seems to have “been entirely with the females, as the quantity and “quality of the male principal was all that could be “desired. Whatever the cause of the difficulty, the effect “was at once apparent in the abnormal character of the “fluid surrounding the eggs. From most of the females “the eggs would fall into the receiving pan like shot, “accompanied by one half to one fluid ounce of watery “substance, sufficient of which had been absorbed to “prevent fertilization. If there was any doubt that “absorption of water by a large percentage of the eggs “had taken place before leaving the fish, it was dispelled “by the fact that it was quite full and hard when taken “and refused afterwards to take up any more water. “ Moreover, the eggs from six females were found to be “enveloped in the natural viscous fluid, and these were “successfully fecundated.” The record above set forth refers to the spring work of 1883 at the Northville Station of the U.S. Fish Com- mission. Succeeding reports from this station, including the season of 1888 give varying degrees of success; ranging from 15 per cent. to 69 per cent. and averaging but 39 per cent. of impregnation during a period of six years. When we consider the large experience and high degree of success attained by Mr. Clark as a fishculturist, we cannot help but be struck most forcibly by the seeming failure of this branch of work at Northville. But, the report quoted by Mr. Clark shows us where to search for the cause. It is to be found in those hard, distented eggs which fall into the receiving pan like shot, and are frequently accompanied by an abnormal fluid. If this trouble were confined to the Northville Station solely, it might not be considered of sufficient importance to 181 bring to the attention of this Society; but it is more wide-spread and destructive in its perniciousness than is generally known or supposed. There is, in fact, just reason to believe that, during the past twelve years, there has been a loss of fully ten million rainbow trout eggs to the fishculturists of the United States. Had it been possible to impregnate these ten million eggs they would have had, all things considered, a value of $18,000 to $20,000. Whilst the trouble has proven insurmountable in Michigan, it has been serious in New York, alarming in Arkansas, and felt in no small measure in Virginia and Missouri. In Wisconsin the hard, distended eggs are not strangers (though Mr. Nevins is able to hatch 80 per cent.) And, following it Westward, it shows its hydra head in Colorado and even in California. In his original report of this trouble Mr. Clark says ; “Without attempting to account for the failure, I am “inclined to think that the fish were overfed, and that “the in-flow in their pond gave them a current quite too “slow and feeble, resulting for the most part, in great “inactivity and in their being in good cordition for “market at spawning time. I propose to reduce their food “allowance to a minimum and place them in a good current “of water.” Future reports do not show that these rem- edies were tried, though it is fair to presume they were. But, in the United States Fish Commission Report for 1885, page 126, this statement from Mr. Clark occurs; “Tt would seem that the species (zzdeus) will not acclima- “tize to the waters of this station (Northville, Michigan).” These views of Mr. Clark are here given to call to your attention the theories which have been advanced and part- lally tried. Based on data which will follow, I believe the first two theories, ‘‘over feeding” and ‘ insufficient current,” to be erroneous. Messrs. Annin, at Caledonia, New York; Monroe Green, at Mumford, New York; Mather, at Cold Spring 182 Harbor, New York; Dean, at Leadville, Colorado; Rob- inson, at Mammoth Spring Arkansas; and Fitzpatrick, at Chabot Lake, California; in common with Mr. Clark, at Northville, Michigan, have not averaged above 50 per cent of impregnatiun with the rainbow trout eggs. Mr. Seagle, of Witheville, Virginia, concedes 20 per cent. of his average take to be ‘‘hard, glassy eggs,” and Mr. Nevin, of Madison, Wisconsin, acknowledges “we get a number of hard, glassy eggs.” . At Neosho Station, during the season just passed, 66 per cent. of our rain- bow trout eggs failed to fertilize. In the transactions of the last meeting of this Society, Mr. Seal is recorded as saying; “I find that in Mexico they appear to accom- “plish more with the rainbow trout than we do here.” - With reference to this particular work Mr. E. Chazari writes me from the City of Mexico, under date of April 26th, 1892; ‘“ Mr. Clark’s difficulty occurs among us also af i sg Taking approximately the average we “have had this year 50 per cent. of the eggs borned “(spawned) sickly or bad, and at the end of the incuba- “tion, a total loss of 80 per cent.” This is the result of four years old trout under domestication in Mexico. Summarizing the statements from these different sources, I am forced to the conclusion that of the whole number of rainbow trout eggs artificially spawned from domesti- cated fish, less than 50 per cent. are impregnated because of the impotency of the eggs to receive the fertilizing principle. At some places, in some seasons, the per- centage will run higher; whilst, as has been shown, on other occasions it will fall much lower. This average of 50 per cent. is based on the work of ten hatcheries in eight states, embracing all the climatological and hydro- graphical conditions of the United States, except the far south, and may be modified by the accession of additional information. But I feel pretty sure, that upon fuller investigation, the statement will be confirmed rather than disproved. 183 During the season just passed, when studying this matter, it seemed to me unreasonable to suppose that at all of these stations an error had been made as to the proper feeding and watering of the parent stock of trout. Therefore I have discarded the theory first advanced by Mr. Clark, and began to cast about for some other ground. During January, 1892, Hon. Marshall McDonald, U. S. Commissioner of Fish and Fisheries, at my earnest request sent Prof. Chas. Edw. Riley, of Drury College, Springfield, Missouri, to the Neosho Station to make a microscopic examination of the eggs and milt at the time of their extrusion. Prof. Riley made several examina- tions of the hard, glassy eggs, and also of the accompany- ing abnormal fluid. By the aid of the highest power lenses he discovered a tape-worm-like parasite in the hard eggs, and also in the accompanying abnormal fluid. No para- sites whatever were found in any of the normal eggs, either dead or alive. He concludes his report of this investigation in these words; ‘“ From a careful considera- “tion of these facts I should say that some parasite had “infested the trout. It breeds on this peculiar fluid “before described, and is absorbed with the fluid before “spawning; thus causing the eggs to swell up and sound “hard when they strike the pan. JI am strengthened in “this belief since apparantly the same thing was found “in the ‘peculiar fluid,’ in the eggs and in the water “after passing over the eggs, while the water at the supply “pipe was practically pure. I can not name the parasite, “or account for its presence.” Later in the season a series of eggs, normal and abnormal, was carefully prepared and forwarded to Prof. Riley, at Springfield, for further examination. Under date of March 24th, 1892, he wrote; ‘1 have care- “fully examined these specimens, and in each case simply “corroborated what I found at Neosho.” Another series of specimens preserved at the same was forwarded to Washington. D. C., but unfortunately, 184 was so long delayed before reaching Dr. Gurley of the U. S. Fish Commission, as to be, in most cases, in an advanced state of decomposition and unserviceable for examination. Awhile back I stated that the hard, shot-like eggs and accompanying fluid were the cause of the imperfect impregnation; but if Prof. Riley is correct, they are but an effect and the true cause is yet deeper. A study of these parasites with a view of their possible elimination opens a field which but few if any, fishculturists are pre- pared to tread. If further investigation confirms the impression that these parasites are present, and that to their presence is due the loss of one-half of the possible efficiency of our work with the z7zdews, we have a serious and delicate problem; one which probably only the skilled bacteriologist can handle. Dr. Gurley has happily suggested that a simple, though heroic, cure may be found in the progressive elimination of those females producing abnormal eggs. The only practical solution may yet be found to lie in this direc- tion. In the meantime, it would be of value if any of our spawn takers could positively state that the female rainbow trout which yield normal eggs in one season do not yield the abnormal, hard eggs in subsequent seasons. The converse of this proposition would be of equal value. It has been suggested as a possible solution of this difficulty, that it arises from inflammation of the ovaries, established by improper and rough handling at the time of artificial spawning. From my own experience I can state that, though this suggestion may be true in some isolated cases, it is scarcely applicable to the case in general. At the Neosho Station during the season of 1891-92 we spawned one thousand twenty months old zrzdeus. Many of the females, when handled for the very first time, readily gave down these hard, shot-like eggs without the least pressure, showing conclusively to my mind, at least 185 that inflammation of the ovaries, if existing, had not been occasioned by improper handling. I might here state that it is poor workmanship to use any pressure on the abdomen of a trout in taking eggs. If the fish be ripe, and she is held in proper position, she will, by her own exer- tion, extrude her eggs. It is true that a gentle assistance will sometimes be necessary to enable her to pass the eggs from the anterior portion of the ovary to the vent; but the exercise of enough pressure to occasion inflammation would be inexcusable. Suchan amount of pressure may be; and is employed on fish caught and destined for im- mediate marketing, such as shad, whitefish, etc.; and, again, it is unreasonable to suppose that the exercise of pressure at one spawning sufficient to occasion inflamma- tion of the ovaries would not result in the death of the female before the occurrence of another spawning period? Or, if not in her death, at least is such a disorded con- dition as would be indicated by some outward sympton ? After reading the report of Prof. Riley, as above set forth, as to the presence of parasites, I thought that they, the parasites, might have been introduced into the domes- ticated rainbow trout by the use of beef liver, the almost universal fish food, somewhat in the way that trichina are introduced into the human system by the use of raw pork. Working in a preliminary, amateur fashion along this line, I addressed a number of letters to prominent fish culturists, asking if they cooked the liver or used it raw. Some used raw liver; others,a mixture of raw and cooked liver; and others, a mixture of raw liver and mush. But the answer which upset my theory came from my old preceptor, Mr. Fred Mather, who had ex- perienced the trouble of hard, glassy eggs from rainbow trout which had never been fed on any beef liver raw or cooked. Following on the heels of this came a letter from M. James Richardson, Superintendent of the Cali- fornia State Hatchery at Sisson. His communication contained a statement of a fact of which I had never 186 dreamed. He says; '‘‘ Yes, I have observed, to a small “extent, the hard, glassy eggs from wild trout caught “from the streams of the Pacific slope.” This so far as I am able to ascertain, is the first intimation that the hard eggs are found in these fish in their native home. It is true that Mr. Richardson says that under his obser- vation it occurs to a small extent. Mr. Richardson’s statement may be taken as a further argument against the theory of inflammation being established by rough hand- ling. But its true significance is this; the origin of this abnormality of the zyzdeus is not attributable to domes- tication, it exists to-day among these fish in their native state, but it seems that in domesticating them we have ageravated thisabnormality. That is tosay; we have, in some occult manner, given prominence to the environ- ments that increase the propagation of the parasite dis- covered by Prof. Riley, and which appears to exist, to a limited extent. in the female trout in her native habitat ; whilst on the other hand, we are omitting something which would tend to suppress its reproduction. This being true the remedy for the trouble might be found in a condition of food and life approximating those of nature. Such may not be attainable at all points. No method seems so feasible as that employed by Mr. Gemaz of France, in his ponds for the self-reproduction of natural fish food. It would, of course, be necessary in such an undertaking to stock the ponds with proper natural food from streams from the Pacific slope; for, otherwise, that particular element which tends to maintain a healthy condition of the reproductive organs of the zvzdews might be omitted. In conclusion, I beg to quote the following significant clause Commission for 1882; “In producing and raising “helpless infancy some of the fish tribe, art may surpass “nature ; but only by a return to the ways of nature at a “period when helpfulness succeeds helplessness can the “best development come.” NATIONALISM IN STATE FISHERIES. By C, A. CHAMBERLAYNE of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen: It is with very justifiable hesitancy that I ventured to address this presence I am afraid that my practical knowledge of fishculture is limited to a fascinating trout brook found in that part of Massachusetts known as Cape Cod, along the banks of which some most delight- ful hours of my life have been spent. I must plead guilty to a dense ignorance on the subject of those inge- niously constructed but not entirely settled /atza dzsepuotias of the inhabitants, depths or shallows, for which I have constantly and so far successfully retied upon a certain commissioner from the State of Maine, who is detained from you to-day by a sickness, which he greatly regrets. But, while it will be impossible to masquerade before you as a worthy associate in any scientific aspect for the means of national definition of approved knowledge and experience gathered here, it may still be permitted to claim such brotherhood in the great guild of friendship for the fisheries or may properly be conceded to careful consideration of the fish food supply of the country, and at least partial appreciation of the importance of its pre- servation, and some knowledge of certain of the obvious dangers that threaten it. It has been suggested that a word or two might pro- perly be said of that attempt at national legislation called the “Lapham Bill.” The suggestion is a flattering one, for the Lapham Bill is interesting in itself, in its history, and still more for what it represents. It is difficult to say whether it is more worthy of examination in the legal, the scientific or the political side. What the bill proposed originally to do is not disputed. It attempted to revolutionize the control of State fisheries, to nation- alize them. Its purpose was, and its effect would have been, to abrogate all important fish laws of the entire 188 Union, whether seaboard or inland. To be sure, it applied directly but to mackerel and menhaden, but the possibility of its passage was based upon a larger general power and none of its advocates denied the fact. After the most careful examination which I have been able to give the subject, it is, in my opinion, perfectly clear that there is not the slightest foundation for the contention that, as matter of law, Congress has the power here claimed. Nothing is clearer than that within the terri- torial limits of a State (that is, speaking generally, within a marine league of seashore States), it is not within the powers of Congress to abrogate or contravene a State fishing law. The contention of the friends of the bill is a most contradictory tissue of half truths and non-sequit- urs, frequently even relying upon verbal quibbles and more often upon failure to give due weight to qualifying principles So far as the present state of the decisions is concerned, the rights of the States have nothing to fear from the legal aspect of the Lapham Bill. While, however, it is satisfactory to know that Con- gress cannot amend State law, it is equally satisfactory to remember that it is by no means powerless in the pre- mises. While Congress cannot abrogate State law, it can supplement and aid it. Under its power of prohibit- ing importation and of regulating American vessels engaged in fishing outside State limits, Congress can practically enforce a close season and probably limit the effect of destructive methods of capture by removing a profitable market or by forfeiting the Government license in case of violation, by those on board, of the Act of Congress. This power is well illustrated in the passage of the Mackerel Law of 1887, now expiring by limita- t10n. In further exercise of its power to regulate commerce, Congress may prohibit between States the transportation of fish which would, by the laws of any State be for- feited and by the easy process of making such offense 189 triable in the Courts of the United States could exercise a most valuable repressive influence against the perpetra- tion of certain offenses against the fish and game preser- vation with which the States are at present dealing under great disadvantage. Legally, the situation is a good one. The State can be aided in its efforts. Its local fish laws cannot be abrogated by Federal authority. But, while there is little ominous to the interests of the fisheries in the legal aspects of the ‘‘ Lapham Biil,” there is more in the persistency, skill and concentration with which the bill was urged upon Congress and with which the facts calling for its passage were insisted on. It is not too much to say that the case of the petitioners was admirably handled. Through all the ramifications of influence which could act upon legislators and com- mitteemen, apparently every useful exertion was made for the passage of this bill. It is generally believed that the effort for the passage of the bill was visible in the Speakership contest on the occasion of the organization of the present House of Representatives, and that a pledge for the bringing forward of that particular bill procured Speaker Crisp the vote in caucus of Mr. Paige of Rhode Island, if not of other members. Many cir- cumstances tend to bear this out. Literature of differ- ent kinds, much of it bearing evident marks of a pur- pose, had been prepared for months and was on hand for circulation in easily available forms. Not only was the entire membership of the United States Menhaden Oil and Guano Association stirred up to intense activity, excellently led and handled by its president, who direc- ted operations on the spot, but allied trades having simi- . lar interests were induced to respond, its treasury was emptied into the fight. The mackerel fishermen desiring the same objects, were joined as “silent partners” in the menhaden ven- ture, but little argument being made in their favor, but, like other silent partners, useful in a financial point of view. 190 The fishmarket men of New York, Boston, Philadelphia, Portland and other cities, gave most energetic co-operation. The net and twine corporations of New York, Balti- more, Gloucester, Boston and elsewhere, were able to add to the combined attack their estimates of the import- ance of removing State restrictions. The fertilizer companies using the refuse menhaden scrap for its ammonia, ranged themselves in line. These diverse organizations not only packed the committee room on the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fish- eries four successive days with a crowd of shrewd, inter- ested. highly respectable witnesses, but exerted an immense, if indirect, influence upon the Congress. Not only were these influences and many others energetically at work, but there was an appreciable amount of brains in the management and plenty of cash to back up the brains. If any particular thing was to be said, editorially, in a newspaper, it was procured at just the right time and neatly marked in blue pencil, placed before the pro- per person through the most effective channel. If any Board of Trade resolution or other expression of opinion would be influential with an individual member, the meeting was held, the resolutions adopted. Some one saw that it was done. If a member could not be directly approached and his ‘“‘friend” could be, the friend was ready at his elbow. Able counsel, amply supplied with funds and the consequent leisure and opportunity had spent weeks in preparation and could display those little social courtesies to members, which, with a body so large and so indifferent as Congress cannot well fail to be a force in themselves. If a reasonable douceur was necessary to enlist the interest of local or general news- - paper reporters. the money was ready. If a Fish Com- missioner of Massachusetts showed energy in opposing the bill, the man supposed to be most influential with him was able to threaten him with personal and official extinction. If a Congressman showed an unduly active 191 interest for the fisheries, a “back fire” was immediately attempted to be kindled in his district by arousing threatened and portentious opposition to his re-election and he was of course carefully informed through papers constantly laid on his table, of progress of the flames. Such persons as were amenable to more sordid and sub- stantial arguments were in the hands of other agents ‘‘with the necessary funds.” The shreds of legal argu- ments in favor of the bill were skillfully dressed and padded into a semblance of plausibility, the apparent hope being that the committee, many of whom were not lawyers, might conclude that where so much could be emphatically said, there must be at least enough to war- rant an opportunity for judicial decision. On the other hand, the wellworn arguments in favor of such an act were discriminatingly adopted to the sup- posed taste of the gentlemen who were asked to swal- low them. The ‘poor man’s cheap food,” the ‘note of sport,” were relied on. The petty, local nature of these State regulations, conceived in ignorance and brought forth in prejudice, was incessantly dwelt on. The advan- tage to farmers especially in the West and South of having the cheap fertilizer made by Mr. Bradley of Bos- ton, from the fish scrap of Messrs. Church Bros. of Tiverton, R. I., was depicted in glowing terms. Fields of waving grain and thousands of bales of of snowy cot- ton grew up in plain sight of the committee under the magic wand of the petitioner’s eloquence, as the neces- sary result of destroying the fisheries of Buzzard’s, Prin- cess and Casco bays. The miner’s lamp was destined to go out; coal supply cease or advance in price; the shoe manufacturer must abandon his business, people go unshod should the ponderous wheels of Congressional legislature fail to start for the benefit of the gentlemen who had banded themselves together into the “Guano Association” for they purpose, as they euphemistically phrased it, “of steadying prices.” 192 In these and various other ways the fine hand of good, practical management showed itself. As one of their witnesses stated, “It was either a funeral or a resurrec- tion,” and they acted accordingly. Is it to be wondered that such persistent, well directed effort accomplished results? Is it strange that when the Stenographer of the Committee was in the pay of the association that the record at critical points, such, for example, as that relat- ing to the wishes of the fish Commissioners of the United States for assuming control of State fisheries or the “trust” nature of the Guano Association, the record has itself been materially altered and masculated? Is it a matter for surprise that six Democratic members of a Democratic House of Representatives should vote for a surrender of the rights of their States and an absolute abandonment of a distinctive principle of their party; that when the committee itself stood seven to six, a Democratic speaker of the House of Representatives should ‘“‘promote” a Republican member of the majority off the committee and substitute a more available man; that a substitute bill should then be introduced substan- tially similar, but most dangerously misleading; that the action of the committee should then be reversed by a snap judgment, only saved from final approval by the good sense of a single man; that, finally, this decision should be reversed in the utter absence of the entire ele- ments friendly to the bill, with the singular spectacle of a Chairman who declined to vote and only attended to make a quorum? Is it surprising that, notwithstanding an emphatic recommendation from the Governor of Massachusetts, these netting interests should by indirection for weeks, prevent sending any official representation from Massa- chusetts, while charges of the bribery of several members through the lobby were continually circulated? Is it to be wondered at that a Fish Commissioner of Massachu- setts saw reason suddenly to leave for home and never 193 return; that representatives from our fishing ports like Gloucester and from fish distributing points like Port- land, Boston or New York saw good cause to support the bill? It is even unintelligible that an official of the United States should allow a confidential subordinate most disingenuously testify for the greatest fish destroy- ing agency of modern times and himself personally to endorse a bill which would have made ignorance and ambition supplant knowledge and intelligent interest in control of the great fishing interests of the States of the Union? With this incessant, well directed, well supported work the cause of the defenders of fisheries did not invite com- parison. The disadvantage under which the public interest labors compared with private interest, showed out clearly from the first in alarming contrast. There were, of course, certain Representatives in Congress who gave consistent and loyal support to the cause of fish pre- servation in spite of threats and at much personal incon- venience. Messrs. Milliken and Boutelle of Maine; Hoar and Randall of Massachusetts, more especially Mr. Seth Milliken, gave their personal attendance to the hearings of the Committee and every possible assistance to the representatives of the cause. Mr. W. A. Jones of Virginia made an excellent argument against the con- stitutionality of the bill. In other ways and through the members, undoubtedly excellent work was done. But necessarily much of such work was disconnected and without co-operation or general direction. It was done in most cases in the interests of other business by men having large matters on hand and without the bene- fit of special knowledge or experience. Much of it was offset by the efforts of other Congressmen like Coggs- well, Paige or Lapham in favor of the bill. Necessarily such systematic work as must be done fell to other hands and these were few and not especially practiced. Really, gentlemen, it was at first disheartening, indeed. 194 On the occasion of the first hearing, February 17th, 1892, the friends of the bill were able to create an atmos- phere of opinion in their favor, which could not but affect the judgment of the Committee. They packed the large Committee room to suffocation; they had innu- merable large delegations, representing important inter- ests from large cities; they had excellent counsel, good stenographers, and put in an apparently overwhelming case carefully elaborated with models and figures in abundance. On the other hand, to cross examine without any pre- vious knowledge of their testimony, these numerous and well equipped witnesses were two solitary gentlemen from Boston and New Bedford in Massachusetts. My associate, Mr. Palmer, and myself. It is obvious that the situation is absurd. Here was the most determined, well directed assaults againt the fisheries of the States of recent years, backed with an ample treasury, under good leadership, and the defence was left almost to go by de- fault. Well, we did the best we could. Neither of us had any official standing before the Committee. Neither of us had any compensation, present or prospective. Mr. Palmer represented a sporting association upon Buzzards Bay, and his expenses, to a limited amount, were gua- ranteed by that organization. I myself represented cer- tain towns on Buzzard’s Bay, through memorials signed by their official representatives, and my expenses to a limited extent were paid by private generosity. We attended all the hearings and Mr. Palmer, at least, made some excellent points. With the adjournment of the Committee for a week at a time and their short hearings of an hour each week, the rapacity of Washington hotel keepers, soon reduced our slender appropriations. A council of war was held. Mr. Palmer decided he must go home. I determined to stay. All spare time was employed in the Congressional Library in the exanina- 195 tion of law, for the constitutional point seemed to be the best and strongest. Practically, I was alone. The Fish Commissioner of my own State had gone home and I[ was informed that there was nothing of the appropri- ation of $14,000 which was available for the purpose of resisting this bill, even to the extent of paying for print- ing an argument. I was not in funds myself for the pur- pose. At this juncture something of an inspiration came to me. JI remember that at one of the hearings before a packed and adverse Committee of our Massachusetts Legislature on Fisheries and Game, | had seen a Fish Commissioner for the State of Maine, Doctor Edwin W, Gould, who seemed somehow to have the idea firmly rooted in his mind, that it was part of the duty of a Fish Commissioner to preserve fish as well as propagate them. I telegraphed for him. I told him that matters were cri- tical. He notified me to hold on and he would come on. He did so and personally I felt the situation change. He brought to the work energy, determination, an official position and some little money. The Doctor is a physician in active practice; yet for almost three consecu- tive weeks he staid on in Washington. The days were spent in the Congressional Library, I working on the legal, he on the scientific aspects of the question. Eve- nings and Sundays were spent at his hotel. The head- quarters of the “Fisheries Defence” were Room 8, Hotel Hamilton, Washington, D. C., for weeks. A brief on the law and a memorial of facts were prepared, printed at the expense of the State of Maine, submitted to Congress and distributed through the country. We desired to visit certain places on the coast, New Jersey, Virginia or Maryland, to enlist support we were sure to find, but the funds were not sufficient. What could be done in other States through the mails we did, and valu- able results followed, as we have ventured to hope. From this or other causes, representatives began to hear 196 from their constituents hitherto silent. The Massachu- setts Legislature sent on the Attorney General and an agent, both of whom were to act without compensation and rely for their expenses upon the capacity of the con- tingent fund. | The Attorney General of Maine consequently ad- dressed the Committee against the bill. By these and other influences, the bill met its fate. The “Lapham Bill” will have served a most useful purpose if it emphasizes the danger to the fisheries from this quarter and suggests the remedy for their protection. The danger is in those opposing disciplined troops of gorilla warfare; the remedy is in the hands of admirable organizations such as yours, and lies in solidifying the interests of the country for the preservftion of its fish supply of food. a . a Fishes, OS Netana ome JRANSAGTMONS AMERIGAN FISHERIES SOGIEMY 1693 Treen oACTIONS OF THE AMERICAN FISHERIES SOCIETY TWENTY-SECOND ANNUAL MEETING. HELD IN THE MICHIGAN STATE BUILDING, JACKSON PARK, CHICAGO, ILL, JULY 15TH, 1893. NEW YORK: John M. Davis, Typographer, 40 Fulton Street 1898. OFFICERS FOR 1898.94. PRRSIDE NT, ELE EY (Cl. OR gc) hovac' eases. se saree ne Philadelphia, Pua. VicE PRESIDENT, FRED. MATHER...... ..... Cold Spring Harbor, N. Y. TREASURER, DR. R. ORMSBY SWEENY.................. Duluth, Minn. Recorpine Secretary, EDWARD P. DOYLE.......... New York City. Com. Sacrherary, Dr J. A. PMNSHALE 3... toca. « Jineinnati, Ohio. KXECUTIVE GE6MMITTEE. ORME OPA EN Nae th iscsi ails 18 Pate Sslahoga «nicht oe Ne Ue ae ee La Grange, Ga. irae EAN IN Gy LOM IN Ge cis" site oat oe ue eaten area New Rochelle, N. Y. ey UPC tte is st ©. Pes. « ess wt easiest ee Oe eee eee Erie, Pa. VV tere VIDA Vay hes eh iceoaseya sa terach Nisan saya elevsta, Syatartiet aerate tele lars eee Omaha, Ned. Ri Rr MONEY WALI ote ax erway s noieberms ee ain sra he nee gt meals eee mee Madison, Wis. ee GHOINIG RBM aevaer tei ce lces ete have Sa Race ey asccctied a an ncstee trae Bete Toledo, Ohio. Ay Ese RUBIN CEM is. aloe st-aaveinia sin sreaiers 20m reels inches oe South Braintree, Mass. EEG CEE Ta Wy EVID ASG Ete cise) ote: chain ier: cieneserelseierm renee toc ante Detroit, Mich. MNT ES = (Ee A TWENTY-SECOND ANNUAL MEETING —— Oe —— AMERICAN FISHERIES SOCIETY. PARTY Fins. The meeting was called to order by the President, Hon. Herschel Whitaker, of Michigan; the following members being present : A. Booth, : ‘ ‘ ‘ : Illinois. L. D. Huntington, : ‘ : New York. William H. Bowman, ' : ; New York. Robert Hamilton, 5 ‘ ; New York. A. 8. Joline, : ; : : New York. William C. Butts, ; , . . New York. David Decker, _ ‘ : ; . New York. G. Freas, : . : : Pennsylvania. Charles L. Heins, : : d New Jersey. Henry: C; Ford;,, 4 ; : Pennsylvania, W.L Gilbert, : : : Massachusetts. William L. Powell, ; ; : Pennsylvania. William F. Page, ie ; : Missouri. W.S5S. de Ravenel, : 2 , South Carolina. Dr. Tarleton H. Bean, ; d Washington, D. C. Frank N. Clark, : : : Michigan. Herschel Whitaker, Sie ; z Michigan. Hoyt Post, Michigan. Dr. Jacob Reighard, Michigan. William L. May, Nebraska. Edward P. Doyle, New York. Charles Wyeth, New York. Fred Mather, New York. Dr, J. A. Henshall, Ohio. Dr. H. H. Cary, Georgia. H. W. Davis, Michigan. W. David Tomlin, Minnesota. C. E. Armstrong, Ohio. Joseph H. Blair, Nebraska, J. ©. Parker, Michigan. J. W. Collins, Washington, D. C. James Nevins, Wisconsin. John Gay, Pennsylvania, B. R. Vincent, 4 “ Ohio. Dr. R. O. Sweeny, : ; : Minnesota. Dr. Nicholas Borodine, ; ; : Russia, Asa French, : : ; Massachusetts. Dr. William M, Hiadean 5 : : Connecticut. H. C. Demuth, ‘ : : Pennsylvania. L. Streuber, : F Pennsylvania. After the roll was called, es President addressed the members as follows: GENTLEMEN OF THE AMERICAN FISHERIES SOCIETY : We meet to-day to participate in the work that may properly come before us at our twenty-second annual gath- ering. While the Society changed its name some years since from the Fishcultural Society to its present name of the American Fisheries Society, its personnel remains practically the same as before the change, and notwith- standing its change of name may be considered as having had one continuous existence from its original inception. The object sought in the change of name was to give to the title under which it was known a broader and more compre- hensive scope, and to admit not only those who were fish- culturists but those who, while not actively engaged in fish- cultural work, were interested and active workers in mat- ters closely allied with fishculture. The wisdom of the 5 change has been fully justified by the addition of such persons, who have proven useful members. The formation of the Society was coeval with the intro- duction of practical fishculture into this country, and the necessity of such an organization as a useful aid to fisheul- ture, in the opinion of those who organized it, has been fully justified by its history. Its originally expressed ob- ject was to bring together, for consultation and into closer relationship, those who were interested in fishculture, di- rectly and indirectly. Those purposes have been fully subserved by the Society in all its past history, and the published records of its proceedings from year to year furnishes a record of the current advance that has been made from year to year in the work of artificial propaga- tion, the stocking of waters and the advance in fishcultural work. The papers submitted at its meetings on subjects of interest have been of great value, elicited discussion, and brought out new ideas which have been of advantage. There is perhaps no.country in which the importance of fishculture has been so generally recognized as in the United States. The commercial value of our sea and lake fisheries is very important, and the decay resulting from a long and protracted course of fishing, first challenged at- tention of the people to the institution by means of which the waste might be corrected and the loss made good. The general Government and the State Governments more than twenty years ago recognized the benefits to be derived from the work of artificial propagation, and at once commenced the establishment of hatcheries, and haye since liberally voted money for the establishment and maintenance of fishcultural work in the various States. The work of the Fish Commissions in this country has up to this time been mainly directed to the propagation and planting of fish in the sea, lakes and streams. This work has been most successful, and the waters thus planted are a standing object lesson of the value of this undertaking. 6 It would seem, however, when we come to consider the status of the work of our different Commissions, and the progress they have made in the propagation of commercial fish, that the time has now come when Commissions should, in connection with their other work, take up the equally important matter of investigation into the food of the fishes, and should direct their attention to this subject, which is of the highest importance to the success of all fish- cultural work. While something has already been done in this direction in this country, the work has been of a rather desultory and fugitive character, and has not been carried out upon a well-considered plan. We grant that itis important that the fishculturist should hatch fish, and hatch them in large numbers, but is it not of equal importance that he should know the character and amount of the food of young fish contained in the waters in which they are put? Is it not of greatest consequence that he should know whether this food abounds more plentifully in one locality, or at one season of the year than at another? Is it not material to the success of his work that the fishculturist should know whether his ‘‘ presumption”? that the food of the young fish is to be found plentifully upon the natural spawning beds should be verified, and if it is not so, where it may be found in greatest abundance? This being admitted, is it not essential that he should know the precise localities of every Spawning bed of the commercial fish beyond a doubt ? In other words, our information should not depend upon uncertain information that is based upon the local tradi- tions of practical fishermen as to the location of spawning beds. While such information may be sufficiently accur- ate for the fisherman’s purpose, it may be absolutely worth- less to the fishculturist in determining their exact location. In the trial of a suit at law, secondary or hearsay evidence is never admissible to determine a fact, and yet the admis- sion of such evidence in a law suit would not be productive 7 of half the evil which would follow such poor proof of so important a fact to be determined in the work of a Com- mission which seeks to do its work effectively. Then, too, why should not the fisheculturist know more nearly and ex- actly by sight the whitefish and other commercial fish of our great lakes at every stage of their growth, from the fry age to that time when their identity can be easily estab- lished by the most casual observer? With such knowl- edge, we might know with greater certainty the rate of erowth of these fish, and we might also be able to definitely determine their movements in the great lakes through- out the entire year. It would be of interest and a valuable addition to our knowledge, to know how long the young fish remain upon the spawning beds, and at what period they leave them, where they go in search of food, and upon what they live after leaving them. These and other mat- ters of equal importance challenge the attention of thought- ful fisheulturists, who keep in view a successful result of their work; and it is clearly not only within the province of the fishculturists and of Fish Commissions to settle these questions, but it is their clear duty. The successful solu- tion of these matters will serve to equip us with valuable information that will aid largely in arriving at the best practical results at which we aim. Greater attention should also be given to the planting or stocking of our inland waters, and the manner in which this work shall be performed. Systematic and comprehen- sive examinations should be made of the lakes and streams, to determine their character, temperature, depth and the character of the fish food which they sustain. Too much stress cannot be laid upon the value of such examination. Only by this method of inquiry can intelligent stocking of waters be done. The fishculturist who wishes to act for the best interests of his work must act intelligently in making his distributions. The character of the work in which he is engaged and its results depend upon his care 8 in making his plants, and if he knows his waters, what they contain, and for what they are suited, he can secure a larger measure of success. This work of examination, if carefully ahi and cor- rectly reported and filed, is invaluable for future reference, and is of the greatest aid in making future distributions. A reference to such report at once discloses whether the kinds of fish applied for are fitted for the waters mentioned in the application. If they are not, the grounds of refusal are at hand by which the applicant may be convinced of his mistake, and fish suitable for his waters can thus be furnished him. The attention of most of our Fish Commissions has up to this time been chiefly directed to the propagation and dis- tribution of the finer edible varieties of fish of the sal- mon family. The ova of these fish is easily treated, and presents but few obstacles to their manipulation, and a large percentage of fertilizationis secured. No faultcan be found with the carrying on of this work, and it is of the utmost importance that it should be continued and en- larged, but we should not rest contented with this work alone. @mawvoOwnmOownaonwv$900606Ss_—sa6=$—=—$0—000—00020———————— —— MACKEREL | CODFISH. HERRING. eRe SALMON, SKINS. —s-) SEA VIES, | eR FRESH LOBSTERS] FISH- WHALE-| COD- FISH AND SEAL FISH saALTED | DRIED FISH SPRAT, z _| FRESH. | MEAL, BONE, | FISH | GUANO. | WHALE| AND oI, |YRA ae (kutp- | 8TOCK- | PICKLED.| SMOKED. | PICKLED | PICKLED ea pie FRESH. gag ee SEAL. oe pi ROE, BLUB- | WHALH jepomened| 7 FISH. FISH. CEPTED. ; : ; BER. | OIL, KILOG. | KILOG. | HECTOL. | KILOG. | HECTOL. | HECTOL.| KILOG. | KILOG. | KILOG} NUMBER.| KILOG| KILOG| KILOG. |KILOG | KILOG. | KILOG. | HECTOL| KILOG. | HECTOL| HECTOL| HECTOL 1880 | 52,962,300|19,252,490| 586,833; 115,691; 118,348 11,755} 2,218,830) 283,230} 407) 1,990,784) 1,278) 1,472) 470,934) 36,880) 26,065] 21,720) 77,630) 8,769,990} 12,284) 168,555] 1,808] 1880 1881 | 41,918, 720|18,876, 200) 1,090,628; 354,109) 167,275 15,574) 1,976,100) 879,670) 2,980) 1,001,981] 1,108 176} 229,031/37,300) 18,840) 17,120) 52,750) 8,344,550) 7,002/ 124,916) 1,776) 1881 1882 | 40,120,360/14,907,170) 719,095) 158,857) 118,755 10,859} 1,870,580} 254,820) 1,707| 1,824,454) 2,180) 128} 390,396/ 20,830} 38,710) 46,900) 66,451) 6,282,600} 11,188] 100,775 15} 1882 1888 | 81,452,920|/10,907,280) 668,982) 123,436 80,158 9,141} 1,965,450} 424,480) 1,418) 1,089,391) 1,200) 288) 542,412/66,910) 27,380} 24,490) 35,633) 7,001,930! 24,017| 82,654 774) 1883 1884 | 87,665,880/13,874,890) 740,807) 147,122 92,962 9,313] 38,774,540) °447,130) 1,195} 940,160} 1,180 479| 492,777] '7,610) 22,140] 135,700} 40,125) 8,081,200} 18,712} 125,262 173] 1884 1885 | 37,272,110)16,829,890| 697,532) 228,286 87,609 11,124} 7,048,305) 627,080) 930} 885,398; 880) 1,885) 241,433)30,000| 15,160] 83,360) 68,914] 7,949,130} 2,225] 146,'770 pre fiat = 10}3) 1886 | 41,491,200/15,869,330) 811,156) 586,001; 129,002 11,066} 16,086,690) 523,320) 2,200) 1,150,957 778 869] 350,917/38,230} 10,740) 121,560) 59,203] 9,052,250) 38,242) 168,565 1886 1887 | 42,207,860/17,477,300| 1,126,002) 1,174,492) 116,247 18,269) 11,624,250) 657,010) 2,788} 888,163) 2,360 656] 373,253] 86,290 2.280} 126,700) 60,165] 6,412,420} 2,760) 159,656 Pca dlclel 1888 | 42,817,520/20,434,150) 888,328) 1,799,392) 129,558 12,069} 3,492,190) 732,000 602} 985,404) 1,025 576} 503,441)18,451) 12.950) 91,420} 52,023) 7,845,490) 8,967) 201,588 868} 1888 1889 | 47,479,240/18, 846,960) 1,054,695) 1,774,147) 126,380 19,809} 9,397,400) 692,360 801} 759,910 735] 1,794} 404,584) 46,508 2,772| 53,550} 51,720) 6,944,160) 2,662] 207,498 624| 1889 1890 | 55,77,120/18,565,870) 829,145) 2,196,686) 150,917 16,991} 8,036,530) 758,610} 1,222) 660,055) 528) 491) 440,750/17,770} 3,890} 89,960) 87,706} 8,630,680 846) 236,701 818} 1890 18)1 | 45,069,600)14,400,100) 788,809) 1,558,703) 136,049 11,854] 10,907,550; 1,026,790) 1,326) 566,703)11,554| 1,271] 465,851) 26,840 617| 94,500] 42,447) 7,102,290) 5,018) 181,691 wwe gt BODE VALUES. CODFISH. HERRING. : SKINS. - Ss ANCHO- | MACKEREL, ’ SEAL FISH, OTHER VIES, | porn | SALMON, LOBSTERS, WHALE | CODFISH | FISH AND |SEAL AND] OTHER | TOTAL YEAR| SALTED | DRIED SEA FISH | SPRAT, |presn Fisu,| FRESH. | FRESH. BONE. ROE. GUANO. | WHALE| WHALE | PRO- | VALUES. |YEAR (kLIP- | (STOCK | PICKLED.| SMOKED. | PICKLED.|PICKLED.| SALMON SEAL. | WALRUS. | WHITE- BLUB- OIL. DUCTS. FISH). FISH), HZORETED. FISH. BER. KRONER. | KRONER. | KRONER. | KRONER. | KRONER. | KRONER. | KRONER. | KRONER, | KRONER. | KRONER. | KRONER. | KRONER, |KRONER| KRONER. | KRONER. |KRONER| KRONER, |KRONER/ KRONER, 1880 |12,804,500] 5,274,200 9,504,200 87,000} 805,900; 704.100} 461,900) 453,200} 396,300; 526,600 9,200 49,500} 195.500) 1,552,600) 1,315,506] 270,300] 5,294,800} 28,200/89,188,500) 1880. 1881 |16,012,000 6,134,800}16,280,800} 118,800] 1,574,200} 734,500) 418,700) 569,500; 400,800 301,200 11,200 22,600) 154,100! 1,091,900] 1,335,100) 252,100) 5,488,300 83,300/50,927,900} 1881 1882 |17,653,000| 6,727,100 12,150,900 55,400} 812,800) 528,100) 447,800) 407,700) 529,800 620,700 16,700 5,900) 24,400} 1,229,800) 1.121,900) 402.800 5,382,500) 86,700 48,198,500 1882 1883 |16,041,000 5,487,900) 11,567,000 49,400} 566,900) 306,000) 516,800; 551,800) 490,200; 745,800 60,200 38,300 9,800) 1,567,900) 1,120,300) 960,700) 4,480,100) 120,500/44, 630,600 1883 1884 |18, 183,100 5,625, 400) 10,555,700 44,100} 608,700) 251,400} 772,700) 625,900) 441,900; 492,800 6,800 26,600} 95,000) 1,524,800) 1,131,400) 636,200) 5,706,300) 182,000 41,910,800 1884 1885 |11,847,000 5,122,500) 8,128,500 58,000} 574,500) 318,000} 1,198,900) 788,900) 401,000, 289,700 24,000 15,200} 58,400) 1,246,800, 953,900) 71,200) 5,228,400 230.800\36,550,800 1885 1886 10,787,700 5,387,100] 9,625,600} 117,200) 854,600} 287,860) 1,945,100} 680,300] 517,900) 386,000 22,900 11,800) 109,400} 1,065,700; 995,700) 100,500 5,140,500 172,000'38,207,800) 1886 1887 |13,928. 600 5,883,500) 9,777,400} 284,900) 765,700; 348,400) 1,226,600} 854,100} 444,100; 466,600 38,800 1,800) 126,700] 1,263,500) 641,200] 70,500) 4,616,800) 119,400 40,808,100} 1887 1888 |15,414,300 6,719,500)11,217,700} 449,800) 1,099,200} 391,500) 1,783,500} 951,600| 561,200, 704,800 8,800 10,400) 137,100) 998,400 863,000; 119,000 5,609,900 96,500 oe ne 1889 16,517,700} 6,095,100|10,865,400} 283,900) 1,290,800! 531,900] 1,053,800) 1,003,900} 455.900 505,700 20,900 1,900) 85,700} 801,700! 838,300) 79,900) 5,726,900) 95,700 een be 1890 |17,784,700 6,703, 200)10,313,900) 895,400) 1,598,400! 321,400) 845,300) 1,137,900) 429,000) 440,800 8,000 2,900) 188,900} 1,052,500) 1,078,800 25,400 6,811,800 108,900 ae er 1891 |18,478,500| 5,995,900] 9,782,600} 311,700] 1,733,200} 237,800} 1,142,200) 1,386,200] 379,700 559,000} 10,700 400| 203,200} 776,800} 894,900) 155,600) 5,953,600) 134,600/48, 136,600 —_— ey, weKwE ae ri e Bi! iat ee eT ee ht G ' SP a eer we Ly ie WE Mary gt at AO eee aS eae SA ears i j : ’ f ~ | Pea RS Ts ae ens reaver 75 ay ay Y, ay } erate , F } Oe aw Bors) , : ; sl i onoee. | nee 4 ; ey a ri Peeve tyiey cK Pee i OP. heh Ne pre ly alli ictnog Se agac : t i 1 Op hAi ty ne en a oo ‘re if 5 > A Pitt. ace A d | enh 7 { wat ey? BM | ert ik a seaaanatin bs A PMR e hy | | ’ * ‘ f f 4 hee | be, eas ' a bidaich Wet ake , yy Ss i ’ oeaan , ore) ea coe eae « "en Swiss ATL yA ‘laa Oty {PAP Atari Wot etl i iy PO RRIE LOO WGA) Lee, (Ot 7 UE IR) a , ESO OT ‘. PS 40 Dt taal Set eet en) eee?) cOF Te i" of : HONSa) Zebo¥, | Orda AU APU RUS Pea fib vay i Nils TA CeLreh | Wi tL ce iet a THALAT roe Lee OG re RE: UNG, Teka ee, ERO Ne Lae oy Pies Peer VSeS " Oe faa M8 (9 BAY LE SR CARAS OS ei Gey ieoe eae, Pe OER ety BOE ee Ae). bY Seen) Ci CBee) SOR UR oe CME | eee Bee tee ODD! Nw WE IV i> (EE PU ely, PO es a DIAG) ri Ai Le OL Ula Oe te ht ah ye vi RAD ) ee eC A eee OK BL UP aay ‘lt wos yk | ' ‘ a Th = A ‘ ks ; J i 4 7 = ei sone ee y ape? ; boars a an ANE WAR), .”! mere | MCE i hUY .¢ : ia ; ac wi? ‘ie WSN “4 ait tal TA) a nye ae CW ion i A i ) ’ = i i. iL a ai in QA cree Vee ar ee err = oY S| | Pe) ) ; ' i BMA de cris i Tae tin (Ret WNT Ae “| era onl i he a) Fan) bi 1 et Oe, Ae | i ee RY Aa, ah OR PLO PAO * Pisil SW CIA eA Tabi Rt ae Ab pnp il ad j ' / ‘4 ah TOR) kay i a a ~via AW DS oe OMI bead! Ci he ee Ose Belts Dh) eel 71 2 oki aa oS he a Le Lr La fonts MALL WME PE wT Re Moe diy: UE Ole Gadd hig’ Gia) OORe P it PUL A OeL ena: Wet OD) EE eS od ens Ue ee 2 470 PU Ro GOP MEMO Re Petes haa aie Bee, eee RMON Pet Aaa RAS, in + cn i}u ani thy ] a qull PLANT, YEARLINGS WHERE NEEDED. BY WM. F. PAGE. The term “ yearling’’ as heretofore used (and as must fromm the necessity of the case continue to be used) is faulty in that it signifies only that the fish under discussion has reached a certain age, acquired a certain degree of intelli- gence, and cost a certain sum for attendance and food. The cost of a yearling will depend, other things being equal, upon the general cost of living in the locality in which it has been grown. The intrinsic value of the year- ling for stocking purposes, if normally developed and in health, should depend upon its size, as it certainly would if the fish were to be used for the table. Latitude and elevation above the sea regulate to a large extent the pos- sibilities of any particular hatchery for raising fish withina stated period to a given size. There is in the United States a variation in this respect of nearly 1,000 per cent. All consideration of the relative values of fry and yearlings for stocking purposes should be confined to the product of some particular hatchery or at least hatcheries under like climatic and hydrographic conditions. In the past, particularly at the last meeting, the oppo- nents of raising fish to yearlings prior to planting have used arguments which would fall under the following heads : (a) The excessive cost. (b) Its want of analogy to other processes. (c) The large number of fish which would avoidably be lost, and (d) Its want of permanent and commensurate results. To an answer to these points I ask your attention. The main element of cost heretofore discussed has been that of food. It is, in fact, almost, if not altogether, the chief factor of expense in raising from fry to yearlings. The attendance need not be counted (except perhaps in 72 some particular case), for the preparation of the food and the feeding of it to the fish can safely be intrusted to the care-taker, who looks after the brood stock and other property. There are among fishes, in common with other animals, several dietaries, some followed from a matter of choice, some from necessity, and others from ignorance on the part of the attendant. They may for convenience be thus classified: First, bare subsistence diet, merely sustaining life and resulting in stunted, deformed fish or starvation ; second, healthy diet, promoting normal growth and de- velopment; third, fattening diet, fitting for heaviest mar- ketable weight, and fourth, over-fattening diet, causing a temporary or permanent suppression of the functions of the reproductive organs, a partial or total destruction of the eyes and inflammation of the intestines, frequently re- sulting in death. The first and fourth of these diets have killed very many fish, the second has hurt none and the third is outside the proper object of this paper. The ques- tion largely turns upon what constitutes a healthy diet ? What does it cost? and is that cost excessive? No phase of this question is more obscure, more diversified in prac- tice or richer in possibilities. In the following paper, wherever reference is made to the ‘‘daily rations,’’ ‘‘allowance,’’ or ‘‘formulas,’”’ the amount and proportions given apply to yearling trout un- less otherwise stated, the intention being to express only the artificial food supplied without taking into account the natural food the fish secure.. Nor have I considered the highly important though ever-varying elements of ‘‘initial vitality,’ ‘‘range,’’ and ‘‘ space”’ in discussing the growth and size acquired by fish at different establishments. It will rarely or never happen that these conditions are iden- tical at different establishments, for we know that at any one they are found varying from year to year and fre- quently in the same season. In our considerations of ar- 73 tificial food and growth we must for the present disregard, or assume as constant, the initial vitality, natural food, range and space. For convenience of study I have adopted as a unit ‘‘ the average daily rations in pounds per thousand yearling trout.’’ I am aware that the unit would be more expres- sive and exact if it were based upon the number of pounds of fish rather than upon the number of fish to be fed. I have the data of the amount and character of food and rate of growth of the fish at sixteen trout-cultural estab- lishments in the United States and Great Britain, the régime and results of which may fairly be assumed as typi- cal of fishculture in general. These data present the as- tounding variation in the daily rations per thousand year- lings of from 2toz. of animal (or flesh) food, in ponds containing very little natural food, to 101bs. of animal food in ponds abounding in natural food. I have calcu- lated the weight of one thousand of the average yearling trout raised at these places to be 52.75 lbs. and the average daily rations to be 34 lbs. In other words, the average allowance for yearling trout is 64% of their weight. This, it seems to me, is out of all proportion to their necessities, and certainly is not warranted by analogy. It is true, as before pointed out, that the rate of growth depends to a large extent upon the location of the hatchery, and the corollary follows that the food allowance will also vary with the location. The allowance of a hatchery in a warm section cannot be considered a guide for one in a colder or more elevated region. For instance, trout reared in the Ozarks acquire a weight 700% in excess of those grown in the mountains of Colorado. The Colorado trout could not consume the allowance of the Ozark trout, and the Ozark trout would stunt or starve on the Colorado allowance. On this subject Mr. Stone says in ‘ Domesticated Trout”’ (page 236): “The quantity [of food] varies with the sea- son, the quality, quantity and temperature of the water, 74 and other circumstances, and cannot be definitely stated. Green says 5lbs. for a thousand two-year-olds. I should say this would be an average feed through the year. I think it safe to say that under favorable circumstances large trout of any age will eat 1-50 of their weight in sum- mer, that 1% of their weight will keep them in good condi- tion through the year, and that they would do very well on half that allowance.’’ Dr. Slack, in his book, ‘‘ Trout Culture,’’ stated that his brood stock throve very well on 4 of 1% of their weight per day. In the report of the United States Commission of Fish and Fisheries for 1884 is a translation of Mr. Carl Nick- las’s book entitled ‘Pond Culture.” In this work Mr. Nicklas enters exhaustively into the character and quan- tity of food necessary for fish On page 112 he says: “As there are no data on the subject, it will be difficult to lay down exact rules as to the quantity of food. It will be correct to presume, at least approximately, the same princi- ples will have to serve as a basis as those prevailing in the feeding of cattle, and we shall, therefore, be enabled to fix a standard which will come as near the true one as possi- ble.’ Reasoning on this basis, Mr. Nicklas concludes that 1,000 lbs. of carp will require 15 lbs. or 13% of their weight of food per day. When we consider that a carp will con- sume, and probably requires, more food than a trout, we see that these three writers are in fairly close accord ; and that the average practice of feeding 63% of their weight to trout is in excess of the amount required. However, it must not be forgotten that these growing yearlings would most likely need a higher per cent. than the matured fish ; but I cannot believe that the process of growing would re- quire six times the material found necessary for mainte- nance after growth was accomplished. So much as to the amount of food necessary, and that given in actual practice. Let us look now at what consti- tutes the food of trout under domestication. At sixteen 75 places I find liver is used. Curd, horse meat and mush at three place. Maggots, mussels, boiled fish and hens’ eggs are each used at different places. At four of the places natural food is very abundant in the waters and largely depended upon fora portion of the year. You are all familiar with these various forms of food, and I shall not make further reference to them except to touch upon the points of natural food and the mixture of vegetable and animal food for trout. No little was said in the meetings of 1891 and 1892 upon the former subject, and I should not now refer to it except that on the part of some an incredul- ity was expressed as to the possibility of producing an adequate amount of natural food for more than a few hun- dred fishes. The following letter from Mr. Andrews will, I hope, satisfy the incredulous on this point : WeESTGATE Housk, Guilford, England, May 6, 1893.— Dear Sir: In reply to yours of April 18, it gives me great pleasure to comply with your request, and if the following is of any use to you I shall be very glad. I presume you have kept a copy of your letter to me, and I therefore sim- ply answer your questions as numbered. 1. I have two hatcheries, the principal one being at Guilford, with capacity for hatching between 3,000,000 and 4,000,000 ova. The other hatchery is at my ponds at Haslemere, and is smaller. The principal rearing ponds, and also ponds for the larger fish, are at Crichmere, Haslemere, and are from 200 to 300 feet above sea level. 3. Temperature of the hatching water at Guilford is pretty uniform at 49 to 51°. Temperature at my ponds varies from 49° in winter to 56° in summer. Occasionally it rises 2 or 8° higher, but very seldom. The quantity of water passing through my Crichmere ponds amounts to nearly a million gallons per diem, and is only very slightly affected by a long drought and not to any visible extent. ‘The place is, moreover, not subject to 76 flood, as all the springs rise on my grounds. The same applies to the other places which I use as fish farms. . 4and 5. I cannot tell how much liver and horse flesh is given to the yearling fish, but as natural food, viz., Gam- marus pulex, Limnea and larve of all water insects are present in great quantities, I can safely say the artificial food given to the fry is very, very small, and in two out of the three of my sets of ponds no artificial food whatever is given to the fish. We cultivate the natural food to a large extent, leaving one or more ponds every year for the purpose, and it is not an uncommon thing for us to trans- fer 150 gallons of Gammarus pulex and 20 bushels of Limnea from one pond to another. 6. We get yearling fish of fario, levenensis, fontinalis and grayling from 4in. up to8 and 10in. in length in 10 to 11 months, and there is very little difference in size of the four varieties above named. I do not care for the S. ¢7v- deus, and have only had a few which were given me by Sir Jas. Maitland some four or five years ago. I need hardly say that the best yearlings are from fry planted in Janu- ary and February, and the smaller yearlings are from fry planted later. Our fish begin to spawn late in October, and I have taken eggs as late as March 20, but I place less “value on these late ova. 7. Weight of 5 in. yearling is about 350 grains, sometimes 450 grains, and this will apply to farto, levenensis and fontinalis, but grayling are a little lighter, being a slighter made fish. We include levenensis in the fario variety. American fontinalis do well with me, reaching a large size, and I have breeders of this kind of 4and5lbs. Many of my two-year-old fish weigh 1} lbs. and 2 lbs. in the see- ond year, but I do not supply fish as two-year-olds over 12in. Jam, dear sir, yours very truly, (Signed) THos. ANDREWS. It must be evident, I think, to every progressive fisheul- 77 turist that a change is coming over the spirit of the dream of fishculture, and in view of the fact that this change has its origin in, and is spreading from, the Old World, we must look at our laurels or else abandon the boast that we are the most advanced nation in fishculture. Only one thing can be urged against the new departure, and that is the cost of the land and the construction of the larger plant necessary for such a self-feeding establishment. But when we reflect that in cramped Great Britain private in- dividuals without Government aid have successfully ac- complished this thing on a paying basis, we must ac- knowledge that in broad and comparatively scantily pop- ulated America it can be done. If fishculture as a private business expands in this country as I hope to see it, the artificial propagation of natural fish food will be under- taken and accomplished. And to him who first does it will come the cream of the profits of the business. It will be by this process we will secure a rational, healthy diet at a minimum cost. But however willing and ready we might be to take up the propagation of natural fish food on a scale commen- surate with the demands, such an undertaking would neces- sarily be slow in its accomplishment, and probably consid- erable time would elapse before it became sufficiently de- veloped to be understood and relied upon. Inthe twentieth meeting Mr. Seal told us how easy it was to secure a start and propagate natural food in any desired quantity. My own experiments fully confirm his statements, and by con- sent of the Commissioner I hope soon to test them ona larger scale. In the last meeting Mr. Fairbank told us how abundantly and cheaply this food produced itself at his place, and how well his fish throve upon it. Pending the development of this new method, which I feel sure will yet be undertaken and prosecuted by Ameri- cans, I submit for your consideration the methods of feed- ing trout as practiced at Wytheville and Neosho Stations, 78 of the United States Fish Commission, and also at the Troutdale Fish Farm, at Mammoth Spring, Ark. The method followed at these three places is not, so far as I know, prosecuted elsewhere; the differentiation consist- ing in an admixture of vegetable matter with the flesh or animal matter, heretofore constituting the sole food for trout under domestication. A few notes on the methods of preparing and administering this food at the Neosho Station will illustrate the method of the three places where it is used. A thick mush is made by cooking ‘‘shorts’’ or mill-middlings in boiling water, which, after it has thoroughly cooled and stiffened, is mixed with liver ground to a fineness suitable to the size of the trout tobefed. Thevery young trout have never been subjected to this diet (though it is not doubted that they could be induced to eat it), but they are started and kept upon a pure beef liver diet until they are thoroughly trained to congregate for their food. When the fry have been on liver for about two months, we commence to mix in a little mush, and gradually increase the proportion of mush (and quantity of food) until by the time they are six months old the mush and liver are in equal proportions. After that time the addition of mush is made freely, so that when the fish are yearlings the liver may be reduced to a minimum. Exigencies have arisen, making it desirable to economize on liver. At such times we have not hesitated to put the trout on a diet of pure mush. They do not allow this food to sink to the bottom and eat it only when pressed by hunger. On the contrary, they rise to the surface, some- times eat it in the air, and rarely or ever allow a particle to reach the bottom. To 1,000 yearling trout we have been giving adaily average of 1.87 lbs. of this mixture, in the proportion of 3.79 mush to 1.0 liver. Their average length at one year old was 6in., and the weight for an average 1,000 was 51.86lbs. The loss in raising 40,000 trout to 79 yearlings on this diet was 6 per cent. of the number of fry. That the fish produced by this diet were normal and healthy is beyond all question, and if evidence is wanted it is to be found in that their progenitors, spawning them at two years old, were raised on the exact same diet. The natural question is, what does this food cost? Shorts cost at Neosho, Mo., 90 cents per 100lbs. One pound of shorts makes 3.6 lbs. of mush. Mush therefore costs one-quarter of acent per pound. Liver during 1892 was delivered in Neosho from Kansas City for 34 cents per pound. From this I deduce the cost of an average daily ration for 1,000 yearlings was 1.707 cents. If this food isnot cheap enough to suit your views, [ then ask your attention to the fol- lowing condensed history of an experiment in feeding trout which I undertook last summer. On August 9, 12,000 healthy trout fry which had up to that time received the same general treatment and allowance of food as we usu- ally give, were deprived of all animal or flesh food. From that time until they were shipped in February, 1893, not an ounce of animal food was given them, and it is certain that the natural animal food which they might have ob- tained was the very least. Their allowance throughout this time was 45 lbs. of mush per day, costing a fraction under one cent per 1,000 fish per day. At the end of the year they averaged 4 in. in length, and an average thousand fish weighed 27.5lbs. The fish were normaland healthy, and though under the average size for Neosho, they were above the average of at least two American establishments. In closing this branch of the subject, let me say that the food composed of a mixture of animal and vegetable mat- ters more nearly approximates than any other artificial trout food in use, a rational, healthy diet; and when we consider its capabilities of creating and sustaining the heaviest growth in the shortest time, we must admit that it is not an extravagant diet. A study of Mr. Nicklas’s article heretofore referred to conclusively shows that fishes 80 need the smallest proportion of hydrate of carbon; and farther, that the best fish food is that containing the larg- est proportion of nitrogenous materials. He says on page 111: ‘*The most suitable articles of food are blood, horse flesh, fish guano, curds, meat dried and ground fine, refuse from slaughter-houses, etc. All these, however, require to be mixed with other articles of food containing less nitrogen, soas to restore the proper proportion of nutritive substances. On the whole, the food for carp will have to be mixed very much on the same principle as that for cat- tle and other domestic animals.’’ (In the passage just quoted Mr. Nicklas has reference to carp, but his remarks apply with equal or greater force to trout.) This is just what we claim to be doing in mixing mush with liver. It is probable that we are not at present combining these ele- ments in the best possible proportion for fish, the Neosho formula being 1.0 meat to 3.79 mush, yet I believe we are using a more rational and inexpensive diet than is to be found in any one element of animalsubstance. If you an- swer me that the trout is naturally a carnivorous animal, I reply by reminding you that the trout we feed in our ponds are domesticated animals. The jackal and the wolf are carnivorous, but your domesticated dog sickens and dies when restricted to the only food acceptable to his an- cient progenitors. Is the cost excessive? That is something every man must work out for himself. In commercial fishculture the problem is soon solved by reference to the cash account. In governmental work it is a matter between the authorized agents and the legislative body controlling. It depends upon so many things that no one can say the cost is or is not excessive except for a particular locality. A food which we can well afford to use in Missouri is found too costly in the East. Leaving then the question of expense, let us see wherein does the planting of yearlings lack analogy to other pro- ———— 81 cesses. Last year the attempt was made to draw a com- parison between stocking a stream with fish and raising an orchard, and with the parallel but half drawn it looked rather adverse to the yearling idea; but had the parallel been carried to its legitimate conclusion we would have seen that the young trees to thrive were in constant need of attention and protection. Food, water and protection from enemies all young trees must have, or only the fittest survive. Forgetting or ignoring these fundamental prin- ciples of husbandry, it was concluded that because one could raise large trees from small ones, therefore one could to the best advantage stock wild waters with infant fish. There is no true simile at any point between the two pro- cesses. In the former case we domesticate the trees, and in the latter case we naturalize the fish. These are widely divergent processes, in so much that in naturalization we omit, or at least, do not extend, the protection always ac- companying domestication. A fair comparison cannot be drawn between the two. A fairer comparison might be found in the colonization by man of new countries. Who among the advocates of infant fry planting would support a scheme for colonizing a new America by sending out a cargo of babies? Let us look at this simile and see if it won’t parallel better than that of the orchard. The his- tory of the early colonization of this continent and Aus- tralia contains accounts of the death from disease, enemies and murder by savages sometimes of entire communities. Truly these were ‘‘ lambs placed in the lion’s den for safe- keeping,’’? somewhat on the order recounted (page 83, twenty-first meeting) of planting two-pound lake trout in a lake infested by pickerel. The moral is, if you will put your lambs into lions’ dens, don’t think it strange if others put their sheep into a sheepfold. But, further, we see that wherever on proper lines colonization has been under- taken, success has crowned the effort, and so it will eventu- ally prove in the naturalization of fish. wa 82 As a practical workman, I wish to enter my negation to the doctrine advanced in this Association in the past of the very large percentage of loss unavoidable in raising fry to yearlings. One member last year said if you have good luck with 1,000,000 fry you may have 600,000 fish at the end of the year. In other words, a loss of 40 per cent., and another member placed the unavoidable loss at 50 to 75 per cent. I prefer to look upon these statements as fancy born and not as the expressions of experience. Twenty-five years ago they might have held good. But to-day, with proper appliances and a proper understanding and knowledge of the work, a loss of 75, 50 or even 40 per cent. from fry to yearlings should be considered inexcus- able. (This be it understood to apply only to the product of such eggs as have not been subject to transportation. ) As touching this matter, I ask your attention to the fol- lowing quotation from Mr. Livingston Stone’s work, ‘‘Do- mesticated Trout’’ (third edition, page 190): ‘‘I must, nevertheless, venture to disagree with them if they mean that there is any necessary inherent cause of death in the young fry which cannot be removed. Some will die, say 5 per cent., though it ought to be less than this, of weak constitutions. They are born into the world so weakly constituted that they cannot stand the wear and tear of life, and must die. JI admit there may be perhaps 5 per cent. of these necessary, unavoidable deaths ; but that the rest come into being already doomed to premature death, or that young trout have any mysterious or peculiar in- herent cause of death in them, any more than young calves, or pigs, or chickens, I do not believe. In the present state of information of the art, young trout fry may be more liable to accidents than other young domesticated crea- tures, and it may be more difficult to guard against their diseases, but thisisanotherthing. Careless breeding may, and careless hatching will, produce a progeny of young trout of which 90 per cent. will die; but this is also an- 83 other thing. Careful breeding and hatching will produce trout which are just as likely to live, in my opinion, as the same number of lambs or chickens; and if the young fry die it is not because of any mysterious, innate cause pe- culiar to them because they are trout, but it is because they were killed, deliberately killed, by external causes, just as much as lambs or chickens are killed by storms, or by parasites, or from starvation or poison. Itis true that they are killed from ignorance of their wants,and not from wilful neglect, but it is the same thing abstractly—the cause of death is external and removable, and not innate and neces- sary. Their wants are peculiar, of course, and more occult and intangible than those of pigs and colts, and to a be- ginner it will sometimes seem asif they died without being diseased. But if they were as large as pigs and colts and could be studied as easily, I do not think their wants would be found to be any more mysterious or peculiar: and if the cause of disease could be magnified, so as to be observed and studied clearly, I think that no more trout would die when nothing was the matter with them. *T am further convinced that study and experience will eventually clear this subject, notwithstanding the difficul- ties which surround it, and that at some time it will be known how to raise trout and make them live, as well as is known how to raise turkeysand chickens. I believe that there are energy and intelligence enough now interested in the cause to accomplish this end. I take this ground, partly because any other is unphilosophical and uncom- plimentary to the intelligence of those who are studying the art, and partly because the facts of experience con- firm it.”’ On page 149 of the ‘‘ History of Howietoun,”’ Sir James Maitland, speaking of a loss of 20 per cent. in a particular lot of S. levenensis, says: ‘‘This is a very heavy per- centage, and is probably 8 per cent. too high,’’ and in an- other place he gives his losses as 11 per cent. and 13 per 84 cent. My own experience with healthy eggs and fry is that the loss should not reach 10 per cent. These figures are not guesses. They are founded on actual counts. My _ method is this: In the spring, about or a little before the average time of planting fry, our young trout are trans- ferred from the hatching troughs to the outdoor pools. We commence by taking out 500 of the most advanced fry and putting them into a pool by themselves. No other fry are added to them until they have been taught to readily congregate in the pool for their food. This training occu- pies two, three, four or five days, depending upon the fish and the condition of the weather. When they are thor- oughly trained in this, a thousand more fry are added. It is expected, and rarely fails, that the 500 trained fish teach the 1,000 new fish to assemble at feeding times. Day by day we add fry in lots of 1,000 until the pool receives its quota. Now, the test of the whole matter comes in the succeeding fall, when the messenger brings his orders for so many yearling fish. Let us suppose his order calls for 5,830 fish. Then, that is just the number which we give him. But how? As a shipment of fry was formerly de- termined by counting a pan of 500 and estimating the bal- ance? By no means. The fish are counted. At the Neo- sho Station three men ordinarily require less than two hours from start to finish in counting and loading an aver- age carload of yearlings. The captain of the car is at liberty to supervise and check the count. At its comple- tion he gives a receipt forthe number of fish. This receipt is subject to a check in that the messenger must obtain a receipt or receipts from the final recipient or recipients of the fish for the like number, or stand the onus of having lost the fish in transit. The total of the receipts given by the messengers, subtracted from the total of the fry counted into the pools, represents the loss in raising from fry to yearlings. A little while back I made the statement that this loss need not exceed 10 per cent. Let us see what eh i de. 85 this loss has been during the history of the Neosho Sta- tion. In 1890, on rainbow trout, 9 per cent. ; in 1891, on rainbow trout, 7 per cent.; on Von Behr trout, 34 per cent. ; on brook trout, 26 per cent. ; in 1892, on rainbow trout, 6 per cent., and on brook trout, 8 per cent. The average of these six instances is 15 percent. This is 5 per cent. too high, and was occasioned by the excessive loss of 34 per cent. and 26 per cent. respectively, in the Von Behr and brook trout of 1891. In the report of these two lots of fish, written before this loss occurred, it was stated that they were very inferior lots of fish, with low degree of vitality, and unlikely to reach maturity. But the rainbow eggs of the seasons of 1890 and 1891 were strong and healthy, and their fry suffered a loss of only 9 per cent. and 7 per cent. respectively. The lowest loss, 6 per cent., was in the lot of rainbows raised from eggs spawned at Neosho—from eggs which had never undergone transporta- tion. I havea belief that the very best results in fisheul- ture will be attained by hatching from eggs which have not been subjected to transportation. The successes which have attended our methods of rais- ing trout fry to yearlings in pools are in the nature of a guarantee or proof that in principle it is very near correct. How different it is from the practice of planting several thousand fry at one time in one place. Some eighteen years ago, when we were getting ready a shipment of Cali- fornia salmon fry, an old gentleman who frequently visited the hatchery asked, ‘‘Who’s going to stay down at the river to care for those minnows and chop liver for them 2?’ The question at that time provoked asmile ; but to-day, in all seriousness, I ask it of the advocates of fry planting. Who is to take care of your fry after they are planted ? In this connection, it was well pointed out in the last meeting that the condition of the fry when planted was such that they must have food at once or they perish, while, on the other hand, the yearlings are in condition 86 to go without food for a considerable length of time. It has frequently happened in the past, and will I fear fre- quently happen in the future, that a plant of fry has been dumped ina stream at some point instead of being prop- erly scattered in the smaller streams. Two of the best writers on trout-culture have hinted at the danger of this. In the ‘‘ History of Howietoun,”’ this significant passage occurs (page 69): ‘‘It must never be forgotten that fry of salmon and trout do not roam in search of food, but take up fixed positions, and snatch at particles carried past by the current; and they do not forage like yearlings until they are three or four months old. Many of the failures in fishculture are attributable to this habit being over- looked, although as early as 1873 it was noted by Living- ston Stone, who says (‘‘ Domesticated Trout,’’ page 171): ‘*‘As they continue to grow, they increase their range, and by the first of September or a little later, they take their food like old trout.’? Now, what are the consequences of these fry thus taking up a fixedabode for several months ? Unless the number be small or the food be unusually abundant, some of those which escape the thousand and one dangers of the fry stage will be stunted and never at- tain any size. But of the vast majority, what? They simply go to join the vast majority on the other side of trout life. Listen for a moment to a partial list of the de- structive agencies which are waiting, watching and search- ing for them. But no, I won’t inflict you. Their name is legion. You all know some of them, but none of us know them all. During the past four years we killed at Neosho Station 530 predatory birds, 239 piscivorous snakes, 2,500 lbs. of crayfish, besides very many other enemies. We try to exemplify the motto that ‘ Eternal vigilance is the price of fish.’”’ And yet we lose young carp, tench, bass and other pond fish. Lose by the hundreds, yes, thou- sands. Not from disease or inherent weakness, but by enemies so insidious, so persistent, so minute, so numer- 87 ous, that we cannot totally eradicate them. Gentlemen, you will find itan enormous task to rear enough fry to counteract the destruction caused by natural enemies, and especially so unless all your plants are made under the best conditions, with the greatest care. You will find also that the cost of distribution when your fry are thus planted to the best advantage will commence to approximate the cost of distributing yearlings. Stocking a stream with yearling fish requires every degree of careful forethought ; but stocking a stream with fry demands an intimate knowl- edge of the stream and its inhabitants, a more careful and wider distribution of the plant, and in many cases an ac- companying or prior deposit of natural food adapted to infant trout diet. In the Transactions of the Twenty-first Meeting of this Society, on page 113, occurs the following quotation: ‘‘I have seen it stated that in some of the streams of the Yel- lowstone, or West, several attempts were made to plant with fry, which failed, and other attempts made with yearlings succeeded. Now, the question naturally arises, suppose those yearlings do succeed and spawn there, what is to be- . come of their fry when they are hatched? * * * It strikesme * * * if the fry cannot live in those streams, and nothing but yearling can, you have got to put in year- lings there every year.’’ The foregoing remarks, no doubt, had reference to the plants of yearling trout made in the waters of the Yellowstone National Park by the United States Fish Commission in the autumns of 1889 and 1890, a concise history of which can be found in the Report of the United States Commissioner of Fish and Fisheries on the Explorations in Montana and Wyoming in the Summer of 1891 (Senate Mis. Doc. No. 65, pages 51, 52 and 53). I do not know the authority for saying these streams had hitherto been unsuccessfully tried with fry—though pos- sibly they had. But I have the very best authority for saying that in at least one of these streams most unfavor- 88 able coa litions prevailed for stocking with fry, and in one other the conditions were adverse for stocking with year- lings. One of the streams, the Upper Gibson River, con- tained the blob, or miller’s thumb (Cottus bairdi punctu- latus), and in the other, the Yellowstone River, the native mountain trout (Salmo mykiss) was abundant. The in- fernally destructive propensities of the miller’s thumb are too well known to need remark here. The native trout of the Yellowstone has well been called voracious, and to him has been credited the destruction of at least one entire plant of fry. Prof. Everman, reporting on his reconnois- sance of these waters, made in the summer of 1891, says: ‘‘At least the brook and Loch Leven trout, which were planted in 1889, spawned in 1890, as we found young of these species that could not be over a year old.’? Here is detinite proof that yearlings planted in a stream are capa- ble of reproducing and rearing their young, under condi- tions which would have, we may fairly say, been detri- mental if not destructive to a plant of fry. How this was accomplished will, [ think, show why it will not be neces- sary to annually restock a stream with yearlings because fry would not primarily live init. That the trout do not exercise any direct parental care (one of the most potent and necessary factors in the reproductions of animals in general) I freely concede, and yet more freely that the young fry are under natural environment at all times the prey of numberless enemies. It is not asking too much to suppose that the yearlings would and do destroy, either as food or from self-protection, and in some cases from wan- tonness, very much of the animal life which would other- wise find a ready and acceptable subsistence upon the eggs and fry of the trout in the following year. It may be too much to state, but at least it cannot be contra-proved, that the adult- trout destroys many of these enemies of their young from a sense of the necessity of the case. The yearling and the adult fish when planted in new waters in 89 their subsistence on its animal life, and in their fight for survival, in short, in their very living in these waters, prepare them for their progeny. Itstrikes me that in this they but parallel the only lines mankind has found practi- cable in colonizing new countries. The fact that a plant of trout fry in a particular stream, presenting outwardly all the conditions necessary for a happy trout life, has been barren of results should not be considered as conclu- sive argument that trout could not live and multiply in it. Try that stream again with enough yearlings sufficiently large to war upon the enemies of baby trout. And if the case is urgent, and the stream is worthy, try it with a few two or even three-year-old veterans. Take the case of the Yellowstone waters as an assurance that the fish will at- tend to their own multiplication and save you the trouble of annually replanting yearlings. The relative values of fry and yearlings for stocking pur- poses will probably never bedetermined. Itis certain that they both have their uses and advantages. There are times and places where fry can and will do all that is neces- sary for stocking a given body of water, and there are places where yearlings will be required to produce the de- sired result. For one, I am far from denying that very much of the magnificent result already achieved by fish- culture is due to plants of fry. But, gentlemen, fry ex- clusively were planted when American fishculture was in its infancy ; now that it has reached its majority it should stand ready to doa man’s work of planting yearling fish where necessity demands, reserving its plants of fry for streams presenting favorable conditions of water and ani- mal life. In this broad country of ours, with its diversi- fied water systems and aquatic fauna, there are streams where fry planting will prove all sufficient, and others wherein only yearlings can succeed. Food and cost of 28,000 rainbow trout raised at Neosho : Mo., Station, from fry to yearlings, on a mixed diet of 90 beef liver and mush, commencing when the fry were trans- ferred to the outdoor pools, April 1, 1892, ending January 31, 1893: Daily Allowance. Total for the Month. PERIOD. ht eee Lbs. of Lbs. of Lbs. of Lbs. of Liver, Mush, Liver. Mush, ou days Of April. 3: . 6.2... 7.0 8.4 210.0 252.0 oi daveoL May 8b oce4 7.0 8.4 127.0 260.4 30 days of June... ........ 8.4 25.2 252.0 755.0 BL Cave OL SULY.. 25 css oslo 8.3 35.0 195.3 1,085.0 Bilidaysio£ FATIPUStV es a hiec 12.0 45.0 872.0 1,895.0 30 days of September ....... 12.0 60.0 360.0 1,800.0 eldays Of October 2.02.0... 12.0 54.0 372.0 1,674.0 30 days of November....... 12.0 60.0 360.0 1,800.0 31 days of December....... 15.0 60.0 465.0 1,360.0 31 days of January ......... 15.0 60.0 465.0 1,860.0 CMTELNY erect nk A eta oet betel she aerate Sele| note ween cee 3,268.3 12,742.4 3,268.3 Ibs. of liver, at 314 cents a pound, cost..........---.ee.e0.- $114 39 12,742.4 tbs: of mush, at 14 eent a pound, cost................- Jess TokOD Cost of food for 28,000 rainbow trout, from April 1 to Jan. 31........$146 25 Cost per 1,000, $5.22; or each fish cost a fraction over 4g cent. Average cost per day per 1,000 was 1.707 cents. Average allowance per day per 1,000 was 1.87 lbs. of the mixture (in the proportion of 1 of liver to 3.79 of mush). The fish were two sizes. On Feb. 11, 1893, they were measured, and weighed: 4,000 averaged 7 in. long, and 107.5 lbs. per 1,000, or 430 lbs. gross, 24,000 “s 5g“ ve DE O00, Oc ee e: 28,000 VeArtings Welehed. x < ciec s2'05.7.01> wick an eiset os 1,452 lbs. gross, A cost per pound of a fraction over 10 cents. Food and cost of 12,000 ‘‘vegetarian’’ rainbow trout raised at Neosho (Mo.) Station, from fry to yearlings, commencing when the fry was transferred to the outdoor pools, April 1, 1892, and ending Jan. 31, 1893. 91 Daily Allowance. Total for the Month. PERIOD. a ae ae a Lbs. of Lbs. of Lbs. of Lbs. of Liver. Mush. Liver. Mush. mrdays Of April. ...0%., oass 3.0 3.6 90.0 108.0 Breays Of Mayo)... ... ss. 3.0 3.6 93.0 111.6 eudays of June:. .<. isn... 3.6 10.8 108.0 824.0 BeGaVSOF DULY. i... sine bs so 2.7 15.0 83.7 465.0 31 days of August.......... SaK 45.0 Hidde 1,395.0 30 days of September....... Byers 45.0 1,350.0 31 days of October.......... 45.0 1,395.0 30 days of November....... 45.0 1,350.0 31 days of December........ 45.0 1,395.0 31 days of January ......... 45.0 1,395.0 SIMA Esc cle om ety a Se ERE oie nuiwal ae e's] eres neeepee 374.7 9,288.6 pict Lbs, Of liver, at 346 cents a pound, Cost. ....cc.cecedcscceecccss $13 11 9,288.6 lbs. of mush, at 1¢ cent a pound, cost.... .... Paola atetale Sesto ate sis 23 22 Cost of food for 12,000 rainbow trout, from April 1, to Jan. 31......... $36 33 Cost per 1,000 $3.03; or each fish cost a fraction under 4% cent. February 11, 1893, they were measured and weighed: 12,000 averaged 4 in. long, and 27.5 lbs. per 1,000, or 330 lbs. gross. A cost per pound of about 11 cents. NEOSHO STATION, FEBRUARY 11, 1893. Measure and weight of yearling rainbow trout. 100 of the largest, mush and liver fed, 10.75 Ibs ......... 7 in, long. ACO mnediuninize, ee SS EE AOS TDS. oc 2.3 cece 5.5 in. long. 100 of those fed on mush only OLS he oe nator 4 in. long. NEOSHO STATION, FEBRUARY 11, 1893. Measure and weight of yearling brook trout. 100 average size, fed on mush and liver, 7.5 lbs.......... 6.5 in. long. NEOSHO STATION, JUNE 5, 1893. Size and allowance of three-year-old rainbow trout. 1,000 three-year-old trout in Pond No. 1 are supported in perfect condition on 2 lbs. of liver and 40 lbs. of mush per day. BeSUP GE Pe TALSORL WENSL sata sic 0 0ic 0's ss 0's.niy s'e'svecte omens ae 17.5 lbs. Bie Ot LNG MHOC VINEE WCL ONS «a's otal ec 6 sie ois « elaidaniem amie malctg eas 19.5 lbs. mo OL, the three-year-olds, Welsh... s..0..« encase smentaemacat sec 37.0 Ibs. or each fish 23.68 oz., making the weight of the 1,000, 1,480 lbs. The allow- ance per day is less than 3% of their weight of the mixture (in proportion of 1 of liver to 20 of mush), costing now 19 cents per day. 92 FEEDING AND GROWTH OF RAINBOW TROUT IN THEIR SECOND YEAR. February 20, 1893, counted 1,500 13-months-old extra select rainbow trout into Pond No. 2 to be raised for fu- ture brood stock. Total weight, 140.5 lbs., an average of 93.67 lbs. per 1,000. Average length of trout, 7 in. April 26, 1893 (65 days afterward), these trout were re- weighed and found to average 260lbs. per 1,000, and to measure from 8 to 9in., being an increase in weight of 178 per cent. During these 65 days they had been given 185 lbs. of liver and 1,008 lbs. of mush, costing $9.29, or each pound of trout gained (after February 20) cost a fraction over 32 cents. May 20, 1893, 90 days after the fish were first put into No. 2 Pond, they were again reweighed and found to average 320 lbs. to the 1,000 fish, and to run from 9 to 9% in. long, being an increase in weight of about 241 per cent. During these 90 days they had been given 305 lbs. of liver and 1,627 lbs. of mush, costing $17.01; or each pound of trout gained (after February 20) cost a fraction over 5 cents. N. B.—Prior to April 1, 1893, liver cost 3$ cents a pound, after that the price was 4$ centsa pound. The cost of mush remained unchanged, namely, one-quarter of a cent a pound. Up to the time these fish were transferred to Pond No. 2, they had been all the time in a pool 8 x 22 ft., among a lot of 6,000 other yearlings. The element of range, so es- sential to the growth of fish, was entirely lacking, as was also that of space and natural pasturage. Pond No. 2, into which they were transferred, supplied to a certain ex- tent these requisites. It has a water surface of about 6,000 square feet and a greatest depth of 36in. Whereas the pools had a greatest depth of only 2ft., wooden sides and bottom, and with a constant change of 55 gallons of water per minute, the maintenance of pasture under these condi- 93 tions being impossible. Pond No. 2 is, for at least one- quarter of its area, less than 6in. in depth, containing considerable aquatic flora and breeding no little natural food. NEOSHO, MO., JAN. 25, 1892. Specimens of trout shipped from Neosho to Washington, D. C., Jan. 25, 1892, to be cast for the Worlds Fair. No. 1. Male fish, rainbow trout, hatched from eggs re- ceived from Wytheville Station in January, 1890. Weight, 30 OZ. ; age, 2 years. No. 2. Same as No.1. Weight, 21 oz. No. 3. Brook trout, hatched from eggs received from Northville Station, January 25, 1891. Weight, 60z.; age, 12 months. No. 4. Same as No. 3. Weight, 6.5 oz. No. 5. Von Behr trout (S. fario), hatched from eggs re- ceived from Northville Station February 5,1891. Weight, 3.5 0z.; age, 11 months. No. 6. Same as No. 5. Weight, 3.5 0z. No. 7. Rainbow trout, hatched from eggs received from Wytheville Station, January 17, 1891. Weight, 30z. ; age, 12 months. No. 8. Same as No. 7. Weight, 1.5 oz. DISCUSSION UPON MR. PAGE’S PAPER. Mr. MatHeR—I did not take any notes during the read- ing of Mr. Page’s paper, except some mental ones. I rather expected to hear from Mr. Clark upon this subject, and I wanted him to get up and say something. Dr. Cary said that there would be no fun unless Mr. Clark and I had our little sparring match. One thing, however, occurred to me during the reading of the paper, and that was, that if we stock a stream with yearlings and those yearlings breed in that stream, and their fry succeed in making a living of it, why would not the fry which might be introduced from the hatcheries 94 live there just as well? If fry will not live in that stream, that are artificially hatched, why should they live when they are the offspring of those yearling fish ? They are claiming a great deal of success in planting yearlings, although it has not been a great many years yet since that theory was sprung upon us. At our last meeting, when I read my paper, there was considerable discussion upon it, and four or five gentlemen took ground against me, stating there was no need of planting fry, for instance, Mr. Roland Redmond. He said one thing in favor of the yearlings was that you didn’t have to trans- port them; all you had to do was to open the gate and let them swim out. But suppose we take the State of New York, which has considerable territory, and suppose we attempt to raise our fry to a yearling age—and Mr. Page has skipped the transportation question entirely—and we send off men one hundred and fifty to two hundred miles with fish, fifty trout in each can. If we send them with yearlings, it will depend upon the size of your yearlings whether there are twenty or thirty or more in a can, and they could only take at most three hundred of those year- ling fish; and it would cost about all the money the New York Fish Commission has got to transport her trout if they raised them to be yearlings. Here is a letter that was written to me last summer that bears upon this subject. It is from Raymond EK. Wilson, Secretary of the Board of Fish Commissioners of the State of California. I had had some correspondence with him before upoa the same subject, and this is his letter: BoarpD OF FISH COMMISSIONERS FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. San FrAnNcisco, CAu., July 28, 1892. Mr. FreD MATHER, Oold Spring Harbor, Suffolk Co., New York: My Dear Sir: I beg to acknowledge yours of the 22d inst., and thank you for the same. Iam aware of the fact that the United States Fish Commission are advo- 95 cating the planting of yearling trout. We have not made the attempt, and cannot do it. Our regular appropriation in our hatchery fund is only $5,000 annually, This amount is probably swelled during the year by about $1,500 from fines and licenses. Out of this fund we hatch and distribute yearly nearly or quite 3,000,000 salmon, which takes about one-half of the fund, The expense of distribution with us is a serious matter, as nearly all of our planting has to be done at a considerable distance from points on railroad. For illustration, we start this week with one shipment of say 25,000 fish for a point on the east side of the Sierras, distant some eighteen hours by rail from hatchery, and then between fifty and sixty miles by wagon. I do not hesitate to say that on the score of expense the planting of yearling fish in our State is impracticable and wholly out of the question. This spring we made an ex periment with the fontinalis, and kept them until they were five months old- before planting. We will not do it again, as we cannot aiford it, and, besides, the planting of the older fish was not as successful as that of the younger. We have now commenced the distribution of our rainbow. They are three months old, and plenty large enough. The Fish Commissioner of Nevada, Hon. Geo. T. Mills, is the only one whom I have heard of who has made a success of raising and planting year- lings, but he does this under most extraordinary favorable circumstances. His hatchery is located in Carson City, perhaps five or six blocks from the railroad depot. When his fish are say three months old, he transports them by rail to the Truckee Liver and plants them in a large pond formerly used as an ice pond, having direct communication with the river. Here he keeps them for a year, feeding them in the meantime, and when the time comes he opens connection with the river, and the fish distribute themselves. He does the same with the land-locked salmon. Toa certain extent, we are do- ing the same thing this year with our salmon. We have made a large nursery pond at our Sisson Station, which has connection with tributaries of the Sac- ramento. We keep them until the ice begins to form, and then let them out into the stream. To undertake to raise and plant yearling fish in any other manner would require a very much larger appropriation than we have. Yours very truly, Ramon E. WILson, Secretary. During the reading of the letter, Mr. Clark interrupted the reading, saying: Mr. CLarkK—Let me break in here. Let me say right there that I was the father of this idea, and not the Com- missioner, and don’t say he orders it. Mr. MatHER—You recommend it, he orders it. I know it was your first suggestion. I thought I would get him up after a while. 96 Mr. Mather then finished the reading of the letter. Mr. MatHer—There were several things I desired to say, but I will leave them until after we hear Mr. Clark. Mr. CrarK—In the discussion of this question, I hope one thing will not be done—don’t let us be too personal. This is a question, as I said last year and two years ago, that I consider vital to fishculture, the question of plant- ing fish right. That to-day, in my mind, is all there is to Iearn in fishculture. The matter of getting eggs and hatching them is a thing that is just as simple in practice as the manufacture of skirts. Our worthy President to-day touched upon a subject that is very important, the question of the food of the fishes. It is one of the very important questions. The planting of fish, not only in the right place where the food is, but the question of planting as near as you can the right kind of fish for the water, is equally important. The writer of the letter which Mr. Mather has just read states that their Commission cannot raise yearlings, but he also tells us what they are doing in that line. They have their nursery where they keep them until a year old, and then let them run into streams; and that is what I have been advocating for a number of years. We raise them at our hatcheries because we have to do it. If it were possible to do it in every instance, and you had a nursery at the head of every stream you stock, it would be better to have it right there. We have one instance of this kind of work in Michigan, where they have com- menced just such an enterprise, and Commissioners Post and Whitaker have visited it, and know that what I say is the fact. They have a little nursery, and they propose to plant their fry there where they feed upon natural food. This is just what I have been advocating all along—protect your fry. I don’t mean to hatch five million trout fry in this way, because it is impossible to do it unless you have lotsof money. At Northville we handle four million trout 97 egos, but we don’t undertake to raise four million fry, but I do raise two or three hundred thousand fry to be year- ‘lings. Iam really glad that gentlemen take these things up and discuss them. But the point is to protect your fish. You take one hundred thousand fry and plant them in a stream, put them right in where there are other fish, and a great many of them will be eaten up.- That we know. Of course, if you plant fry as Michigan, Wiscon- sin and New York have done, you are doing a great work. I have never said that these States have not done a great work in planting trout fry, because they have. I brought here last night evidences of what the Michigan Fish Com- mission have done, both in rainbow trout and other fish ; but I hope they will never put a trout in a grayling river in the State of Michigan or in any other State. Now, what I say is this. Protect the fry and keep them from the other fishes by raising them at the hatcheries, if that is the best you can do, or by having rearing pools at the head of the stream or wherever you can. Mr. MatrHer—We will fight it out fairly now. This letter says, ‘“Speaking of * * * * to a certain ex- tent we are doing the same this year.’? But he does not have to transport them, he hatches them right there. Mr. CLarK—Yes, but he could transport the fry all right. Mr. MatHER—Mr. Clark and Mr. Page have skipped the question of transportation. Mr. Page did not touch at all on the transportation of the fish. It is going to take a great deal of money to doit, and a great deal of the time of the men to do it, and I believe you can hatch fish in quantities large enough to overcome all casualties by death, and I say just put them in in plenty, and at a small cost comparatively. Mr. Page raised the question of who would take care of these fish. Well, the Lord provides for their care if there is any food in your streams, and they will scatter and find 98 it. If there is no food, it is not a proper stream to stock. Another point that Mr. Page quoted, I think from Mr. Livingstone Stone, that there was no need of loss of any account in troutfry. All of us who have had very much to do with brook trout fry for any number of years have seen in a batch of trout eggs some little fellows that will just break the egg to die; others will hatch and carry along until the time comes to take food, and then they die be- cause they cannot assimilate the artificial food. Ido not think a man can take one hundred thousand trout eggs and raise one hundred thousand trout out of them. If you have a certain number of eggs of chickens, or calves or babies, you are going to lose some of them sure. Mr. Pace—I think I could not have made myself very clear, When he says I didn’t touch the question of expense at all. Mr. MatHeR—The question of transportation. Mr. Page—AII these questions of expense in this work, where it is done by the State or Government, are questions that I don’t think cut any figure in the question under discussion, so far as you or I are concerned. They are matters of consideration for our superior officers and the legislatures who order us to do the work. But I did touch upon the question of transportation when I told you that if your trout fry were distributed under the best conditions, with a full knowledge of our streams, your expense of distributing fry would approxi- mate the expense of distributing yearlings. You are mis- taken if you think that was the case. But the trouble is that the fry take up a fixed abode; they huddle up in one place, and they stay there for three or four months, just waiting for a snake to come along and take them in. One other point. Did I understand you that only twenty or thirty yearlings could be carried in a can on an average in the transportation season 4 Mr. MaTHEeR—If you are going any distance. 99 Mr. Pace—We are averaging of yearlings, twelve months old fish, and we raise them as large as anybody in the world, from sixty to one hundred fish in the ordinary round can Mr. MatHer—How many gallons? Mr. Pace—That same old can. Mr. MatrHer—How far do you carry them ? Mr. PaGe—Some up in Minnesota and some away South. Mr. CLrarkK—I will say that I took 1,060 year old lake trout to Washington, and they were in ten cans, and I landed them in Washington with just 1,010 fish ; and they were carried in an old-fashioned baggage car. The matter of expense in transportation, it seems to me, to-day with most of the State Commissions, as well as with the United States Commission, as they are carried in our cars, is very slight. We receive free transportation over most of the railroads, and I don’t think that should be taken very much into consideration. I think your letter from California stated that they had five thousand dollars for their hatchery. Now, you take the most of your State hatcheries, and suppose you don’t have but five thousand dollars for your hatchery, and you handle from two to four millions of eggs, and that includes your superintendent’s salary—that is about the way they run. The superintendent can with that much money raise from 175,000 to 200,000 yearlings, in addition to his regular trout work. I have got the figures to show that, too. Mr. Post—I have been very much interested in the paper of Mr. Page, and it has thrown some light upon the subject, probably, of the better way of feeding and raising fry to yearlings. It is very interesting in that respect, and is the result of actual experiment, which ought to be correct. The aspect which the case now assumes, however, is quite a different one from what it appeared to be two years ago and a year ago. Then it was yearlings versus fry, 100 now it seems to be a combination of thetwo. That is quite a different thing. Of course, those of us who have known, and that, of course, includes all who have had anything to do with the work of the different States, of the remark- able success in all the States of the planting of the fry of the brook trout, would resent the idea of giving up the planting of fry and taking up the planting of yearlings in their place, because it would be putting something in the way of experiment in the place of success. Now that is not advocated by either of the gentlemen to-day, and prob- ably we will get around finally on to ground where we can all agree. The idea of raising two or three hundred thou- sand yearlings out of two or three million fry is not a question of fry versus fingerlings ; it is a matter simply of diverting a part of your fund for raising or hatching fry into the transportation of yearlings. It may be that there is a great deal of truth about what Mr. Page has said about there being places where year- lings will do better than fry, but the problem of cost con- fronts every one of the State Commissioners, which Mr. Page says they leave to their superior officer, and which he says we should leave to the Legislature. We go to the Legislature to get all the money from the Legislature we can. The problem with us is how to spend that money to get the greatest results. If with the small appropriations we get we are going to get the very best result from fry planting, and our work shows it, we shall be able to get from our Legislature larger and larger appropriations to increase the work we can do. So, when it came to be dis- cussed heretofore whether we should change from old methods which had produced great results from small ex- penditures to a thing which was an experiment, we were taken by surprise. But the question as it has been dis- cussed to-day is quite a different thing. Mr. CLiarK—I don’t know but I am on my feet more than I am entitled to be, but that is just the shape of the 101 thing. That is where it should have started in two or three years ago. You will not find me quoted, neither in any paper, nor in any argument, nor anywhere else, as ad- vocating the stopping of the planting of fry entirely and going to raise yearlings—not at all. Mr. Pace—Me too, please. Mr. CLarK—I have never advocated it at all, because the United States Fish Commission is not doing it any- where, and the point is right there. We are to-day begin- ning to understand ourselves, as Mr. Post has stated. I never presented a paper on Fingerlings versus Fry, and I don’t think our worthy Secretary will find the original headed in any such way. Mr. Post—It got into the report that way. Mr. CrarkK—And I want it understood that I have ad- vocated the rearing of fish and the planting of larger fish, in a measure, instead of all fry. SECRETARY—The title of your paper was ‘‘ Rearing Fish for Distribution.” Mr. ViIncENT—Mr. President, I am trying to get some- thing out of this discussion to-day. It is new to me largely. The State of Ohio, which I represent, has been hatching fish largely for years, but it has been mainly for the lakes, and we are endeavoring now to get them into the small streams of the State. The question of the trans- portation of these fish after they were yearlings was spoken of by the gentleman who just took his seat. I will say that in our State we have largely free transportation, but it does not seem to me that that factor need to come into it very largely. We have to distribute the fry in that manner, but if the plan is more practical is what I want to know, to rear your fish for a time in intermediate waters ; that is what I want to find out. We can have those inter- mediate points on the streams we wish to stock, and we have already undertaken to establish one or two of those 102 places ; and if that is the case, the matter of transportation will not come in. Mr. Post—How would you do with two or three thou- sand streams? Would you have points on all of them ? Mr. Vincent—As I understand, the fish will distribute themselves over a large area if they have the opportunity. We perhaps have five or six rivers which reach the Ohio River, and their tributaries taking in perhaps two-thirds of the State, the Scioto, the Hocking, the Muskingum and the Little Muskingum, which reach up to within thirty miles of the lake. The question I want to get at is whether it is more practical to turn the fish into the rivers after six months of age or to put them in when they are fry. Mr. Matuer—I would just like to ask Mr. Clark one little question; that is, if it is better to plant your fish as yearlings, why do you not advocate the planting of them all as yearlings, if that is the best plan ? Mr. CLARK—One great trouble with that is that if you undertook to raise five millions of fish, it would be a very great expense. Mr. MarHer—That is the point. Mr. CtarkK—Now hold on, hold on; but we can raise from two to four hundred thousand at a hatchery with a very slight additional expense. Why? SBecause you are going on with your regular work, and you have to have your regular men, and your regular men can do this work of caring for the fish during the fry stage. You take five million, and, of course, you have to hire some additional help, and you have to be to some additional expense ; but it may be, in the course of human events, after we get this question around, as it comes around now, that we will advocate the raising of them all. Of course, that would be quite an additional expense. Of course, in re- gard to the yearling question, our arguments have all been on trout. Now, I advocate the handling and rear- ing of whitefish in the same manner. Have a rearing 103 pond at some good point; for instance, in Michigan we might get near some good lake which we think would be adapted to them, and have our nursery and keep those fish by themselves, where no enemies could take them, and then let them out in the lake afterwards. Mr. Paage—Upon the tendency young trout have to settle in one place after being planted, I want to say they don’t scatter or roam about in search of food for a considerable length of time after they have absorbed their food sac. They huddle up in one spot, and any | one knows who has paid any attention to it that their enemies are legion. I would be afraid to state now from memory how many snakes, destructive birds, lizards, etc., we have killed at Neosho Station; but we killed in three months last fall twenty-five hundred pounds of crayfish ; and as for snakes, I killed one day in a poola snake, and when opened we found he had taken twenty young brook trout. 104 STATISTICAL REVIEW OF FISHCULTURE IN EUROPE AND NORTH AMERICA. BY N,. BORODINE, Delegate of the Russian Association of Pisciculture and Fisheries. International exhibitions give a good opportunity to reckon up the work done in different branches of human activity, and I thought it opportune to do the same thing with regard to the most recent industry—fishculture. During the last two years I have made a special study of fishculture outside of my country, and visited many hatcheries of importance in Europe and North America. I was thus enabled to collect some material, which is summarized in the following short review. The figures of North America were taken from the reports of the United States Fish Commission, State Fish Commissions, annual reports of the Ministry of Marine and Fisheries of the Dominion of Canada, and from the report of the Superin- tendent of Fisheries of Newfoundland. Those reports, regularly issued, are uniform, but they do not include any information about private fish hatcheries. For Europe, the figures have been taken from scattered information in special literature, from official information furnished by the respective Governments, and private information from the proprietors of fish hatcheries which I visited person- ally. I do not consider the following figures as absolutely ex- act; on the contrary, I am sure that one of them, for want of regular reports, are less than reality. Nevertheless, I believe that a review of figures already known upon this matter may have some interest. Concluding these intro- ductory remarks, I ought to say that I do not deal in this paper with pond culture, the only object of comparison being the hatching of fish in the establishments specially constructed for that purpose. The following table gives an idea of the number of fish 105 ! hatched (in one season) in different countries of North America and Europe, indicating the date of information, the number of fish hatcheries and the expenses of the Government for fishculture : - Annual Number appro- Date Number of fish priation of infor- of fish hatched, for NORTH AMERICA. mation. hatcheries. millions. fishculture. United States : State fish hatcheries.......... 1882-92 46 416. $174,040.00 U.S. Fish Commission....... 1891-92 20 491.2 150,000.00 MOA SUE Se Wane tecate Stajctareiers 66 907.2 $324,040.00 Dominion of Canada ...... .1890-91 13 128. 39,496.50 INewiroundlands, . ce. + ccsicles - 1890-91 1 581. 6,100.00 BNO ANWIN teACS wen araic oese TA 80 1,616.2 $369,636.50 EUROPE. ENOEWAY tae a He cisuletens aeitier outs 1890 58 214.5 4,166.50 Grermiany, (2 6)<\. .(0) -% «102 We Rath bere. 1891 90 25.5 21,815.00 Sovitzerland.. . sermon "9'9 9°¢ hi OSL “iyi Lhe es seee ees erteeeve “Ysnoyy "2°0'@ "4 QL 47100), "Ul OT mama tree bei 0 e-are “‘ySnoyy “NEDIVL “UHLV M “\LHN “MOL |HWAHLVYM AO) “HIV AO AIWOTIOA JO — HO HO | “MALY M Hidad | Hidad |NOILVY) gquatvuaawas -wnd | ‘Apnolg = |‘W ‘dP oe ‘WN ‘a C19 "Iva[O W‘d9 “IBID ‘W ‘d GT" Pr) @) ‘N ‘d CHP PEt [x aer Papas |e -aart ‘qjiou pum |, ‘£pnola a ‘You pura |. ‘£pno[9 va ie ” AVE 18)! sry. (MV S8°0r ‘AUS “00H ‘OSPN PST HA} “ST 86» dA0qe ‘oan ywoujoq | TT ‘SL os ” “Or : ‘qno So[LU F 2 8t ‘uo\suIpn'T 6 : "qno soprut %4T | . 8I ”? ‘oj SUIpW'T 8 : "nO salu Z : ST 2? ‘uoysuIp’'yT L VAS oe » 9 A ‘spuv[s] XOq puv| . AT oy nopyUVvyyy UaaMyoq s yA! ” ” ‘f “LE >, | ‘SpuB[s] noyuvy | “§ 9T ” 29 3 ae “qno sopim 947 { By aay qa0jqaagy t “S681 : ; ee ALITVOOT ON 117 From this table the following facts appear: 1. That the volume taken at the top is in every case less than that taken at greater depths. Compare, for instance, Nos. 2, 3, 5 with Nos. 4, 8, 11. A comparison of Nos. 3, 5, 6, taken in the same locality on the same day, seems to show that the volume increases to a certain depthand then again diminishes. At the sur- face, or a few inches below, there is only .5 c.c. for each 600 cubic feet of water; at 24feet, there are 7.2 c.c., and at 65 feet, 4.06 c.c. for the same volume of water. This result cannot, however, be regarded as final, since it rests on but one setof observations. Itis well known that many of the animals composing the plankton migrate toward the surface at night and seek greater depths during the day, and it may be that the difference between a cloudy and a sunny day produces a corresponding migration. ~3. At the same depth, or about the same depth, the vol- ume taken varies with the locality. The observations refer to four localities: (a) At Frankfort, Michigan, about one and a half miles from land. (b) In the neighborhood of the Manitou and Fox Islands, between thirty and forty miles north of Frankfort. (c) At Ludington, Mich., about fifty miles south of Frankfort, and between two and four miles from shore. (d) The Detroit River, a few rods above Belle Isle Bridge. The first three localities cover a stretch of about eigltty miles along the east shore of Lake Michigan, near its northern end. A comparison of the region at Frankfort and the Mani- tous shows that at corresponding depths there is a larger volume of plankton than at Ludington. Thus, No. 1 at Frankfort, at a depth of 7.6 feet, shows 5 ¢.c. per 600 cubic feet, and No. 10 at Ludington, at 6.75 feet, shows but 1.85 volumes. No. 3 at Manitou, at 24.5 feet, shows 7.2 volumes, while No. 9 at Ludington, at 13.5 feet, 118 shows but 3.04 volumes. In the case of No. 1, taken at 10:35 o’clock in the morning, with the sky covered with fleecy clouds, the amount of light was probably at least as great as in the case of No. 10, taken under a clear sky at sunset. While such evidence cannot be regarded as conclusive, it is, nevertheless, the only evidence now obtainable, and seems to indicate that at Frankfort and the Manitous the plankton is at this time of year about two and one-half times as abundant as at Ludington. Turning to the Detroit River, we find at a depth of ten feet a volume of only 1.2 ¢.c. per 600 cubic feet of water, an amount only one-third to one-half as great as at Lud- ington, and one-fifth or one-sixth as great as at Frankfort and the Manitous. While more accurate and extended observations might modify the results for Frankfort and Ludington, this is in no way probable in the case of Detroit. The results mean that white-fish fry would find food only from one-half to one-sixth as abundant at Detroit as at Frankfort, the Manitous or Ludington. This is only a very imperfect sample of the work that needs to be done. The enormous interest involved in the fisheries of the great lakes and the heavy expenditures incurred in stocking the waters with white-fish and other fry, warrant a most careful and exhaustive examination of . the biology of these waters. The problem should be at- tacked from every side and in the broadest scientific spirit. It is necessary to know accurately the kind of animals and plants inhabiting these waters, the numbers of each kind in a given volume of water, the variations in these numbers due to season, locality and other conditions. It is neces- sary to know the food of each kind of animal, its enemies and life history. The chemical composition of the water, the changes of temperature, at various seasons and at all depths, should be investigated, In short, every kind of 119 knowledge that it is possible to record concerning the life of these lakes is of importance. Not until all this has been done can fishculture in the lakes be carried on with a full knowledge of the conditions which it has to meet. The work can not be begun too soon, nor pushed too rapidly or too far. DISCUSSION OF PROF. REIGHARD’S PAPER. Pror. ReigHaRD—I want to say a word with reference to the remarks of Dr. Borodine, regarding artificial food for and the raising of these crustacea. The process is this . as described by a French writer. He takes dishes perhaps of the size of a tumbler which are filled with cow-dung, and over the top he places a net, and after awhile the diatoms, a few which may be in the water multiply in great numbers so they form a film or coating over this netting, and then any crustacea, he says, which may hap- pen to be in the water feed upon the diatoms and multiply so he gets them in enormous numbers. He suggests the use of that method or something like it for raising this whitefish food. He suggests, for instance, the digging of ponds and the making of troughs running from the shore into ponds, and shoving from the shore baskets or tubs containg cow-dung or other inorganic matter, getting the right plants which will live on that ; the plants are diatoms, the dead matter is cow-dung. If the French Government has any secret it must be in the inorganic matter with which you start. Mr. CrarK—Mr. President, I have never stated to the Society nor any one else, what I have done in this process, neither have I ever stated to any member of the U. 8. Fish Commission, the Commissioner nor any one else, but I have been working on this process for six years, unbeknown to anybody. But I have failed to do the work that it is claimed they can do. I have been working on the dung process entirely, but I cannot produce the food in any 120 quantities such as the French people state they can raise. There has been my trouble. I have worked not only with cow-dung, but with horse dung, and I have worked with human dung, but still I cannot get those little things in the quantity Idesire. I can get more than I get naturally but I cannot get a pond full that will keep ten thousand yearlings from month to month. I have been doing work according to this process for ten years, and I am about discouraged and ready to give up. Pror. REIGHARD—These published statements don’t . give the number. Dr. BEAN—I would like to ask the Professors if these towings mentioned in the paper he has just read were made at any particular time of the day, or whether any difference was found in the plankton or life in the water at different times of the day or in different temperatures of water? Every person who has gone to sea knows that the food of fishes which is so evident at the surface and is known to the fishermen as ‘‘seed,’’ ‘fish seed’ or ‘‘ ca- yenne,’’ disappears at certain times of the day. At certain times in the day it is on or near the surface and at other times it is down in the water. I should think that the same thing would hold in fresh water.. The plankton might be extremely abundant in one belt of water at one time of the day or at a certain temperature, and might be entirely absent at another time; therefore I would like to have the Professor state something about the conditions under which the towings were made. Pror. REeigHaARD—I have those conditions here. They are stated in the paper. Capt. Cottins—Inasmuch as the planting of whitefish fry, which has been enormous, has not apparently given the results that have been anticipated or at least hoped for, I think these facts which are presented by Prof. Reighard are very interesting. . In this connection I would like to hear from the gentle- 121 men present who have been intimately associated with the whitefish work, as to the localities in which they are usually planted, and whether it is true that they have been put into the lakes in the deepest water, and whether they have been put in localities where they would probably find the best supply of food and the purest conditions of water. Another thing I have noticed is that he stated that the supply of food found in the Detroit River was somewhat smaller than elsewhere. I would like to inquire if in his judgment this is due to any pollution of the river by drainage or sewerage ? Pror. REIGHARD—I think the determinations were made above the point where the sewers discharge their contents into the stream. Mr. MatHER—I would like to say for the information of Mr. Clark, that some ten years ago I used to go out with the captain of the good ship Hamilton Fish, and he used always to carry his microscope with him, and he worked a good deal on diatoms. He took the dung of the green turtle and he said that was the best thing to grow diatoms in that he knew of. He said I have tried many things but there is nothing to compare with it. He made the remark to me, you could grow lots of oyster food on that if you had the diatoms. Mr. WuHiItakEeR—In answer to the question put by Capt. Collins, regarding the localities in which whitefish fry are planted, I would like to say that, having been identified for a long time with the whitefish work of the Michigan Com- mission, which has been quite extensive, I am entirely familiar with what has been our custom as to making plants of the fry. We have sought to govern the locality of planting by such light as we have gained from experi- ence, and by the light of reason. We know that certain localities are selected by the parent fish in which to cast their ova, and presumably such localities are the proper ones, and are most likely to be the right places in which 122 to deposit the young fish. It must be presumed that the food conditions exist in such places which are most favor- able to the sustaining of the life of the young fish. Our statistical agents engaged in the collection of sta- tistics concerning the fisheries of the State are directed to interview the fishermen at all points and to learn from them as nearly as possible the exact locality of the spawning beds, and to carefully note the same, that it may be used for future reference in making plants. This has been done, and as nearly as we can we follow this information in de- termining where plants shall be made. The great difficulty concerning this matter is, that such information is to a certain degree unreliable at best, but it is the best we have at present, and is helpful to assist us in determining as nearly as possible the best localities. In this connection I wish to say you will remember probably that this is one of the questions I have before urged which should be taken up and determined definitely. Every spawning bed of the commercial fishes of the great lakes should be fixed by investigation and by persons qualified to judge by education and training where they are, and these localities so determined should be marked upon charts for the use of the fishculturist. THE FISHERIES EXHIBIT AT THE WOREDS FAIR. BY CAPT. J. W. COLLINS. Mr. PRESIDENT AND GENTLEMEN: I regret exceedingly the short notification I had of this meeting, and the amount of work which has devolved upon me immediately prior to the meeting has made it impossible for me to pre- pare a paper as I had hoped to do, reviewing the work and 123 the results connected with the fisheries exhibit at this Ex- position. It will not, therefore, be practicable for me to adequately present to you those matters which I had hoped to bring to the attention of the Society. About two years ago I had the honor of addressing the Society concerning the then proposed fisheries exhibit at the World’s Fair in 1893, and viewing it from that stand- point, I had looked forward hopefully to the assembling of collections here which would adequately represent much, if not all, that relates to the fisheries of the world, including the allied industries, such as fishculture, which has come into prominence in recent years, and also the scientific efforts which have been carried on to a greater or less extent in Europe and America in connection with the study of the fisheries and their prosecution. To say that my ideals have been realized would not be to state the whole truth. When I tell you that in my be- lief there is not a great Exposition building on these grounds, outside the Horticultural Building, which does not contain something which should be embraced in a fish- eries exposition, if it was such pure and simple, you can realize how difficult it has been to draw from those ex- hibits and to bring together under the roof of the Fisheries Building the things which are now there assembled. In the Agricultural Building you will find fishery products. In Machinery Hall it naturally follows that there are many devices, engines, etc., that are used in connection with fishing vessels or with the fisheries in some other way. In the Manufactures Building are any number of important and beautiful exhibits which would be included under the head of fisheries if this were a fisheries exposition alone. Even in the Mines and Mining Building there is a beauti- ful exhibit of pearls from Wisconsin, which has been taken there because somebody thought the taking of pearls was mining. In the Transportation Building are many forms of fishing exhibits from various parts of the world 124 which go to fill in the missing link, so to speak, in lines of transportation, and even in the Arts Building a very considerable percentage of the beautiful paintings that are there, might properly be included under the head of a fish- eries exhibit. I think it is but just to myself to make allusion to these facts which I have mentioned in order; if there are any missing links in the Fisheries Building, they may thus be accounted for. I have not in this enumeration included the exhibit of the United States Fish Commission which stands close to that in the Fisheries Building, for the rea- son that I have always looked upon that, and I think it has generally been looked upon, as a part of the general fisheries display at this Exposition, and was so intended to be from the first, though it was deemed expedient and best for all concerned that it should be put in the Govern- ment Building to be distinctly a national exhibit, an ex- hibit which would be systematically arranged and would cover in a general way all that relates to the fisheries of this country, as well as to fishculture and scientific ex- ploration as conducted by the national Government. But, notwithstanding all this, there is reason for some satisfaction in what has been accomplished by the depart- ment. It is true that there has been delay in the installa- tion, due to the fact chiefly that certain of our State Leg- islatures were tardy in making their appropriations, that some individuals did not realize the importance of this Exposition to themselves until near the date of the open- ing, and to the additional fact that the exhibit front Rus- sia was delayed by being frozen in in the Baltic, and to _the fact that those from Brazil have not arrived so early as expected because of some difficulty in getting them shipped from that country. To-day, however, the exhibits are practically completed, and I have much satisfaction in saying that at my request special effort has been made to place in position the exhibits from Russia and Brazil in 125 order that this Society might examine those collections. They are now nearly ready or in a very advanced stage. I do not deem it necessary to go over these exhibits in detail to this Society. I believe the most of you gentle- men have had the opportunity of looking at the exhibits and have formed your own opinions regarding them. It may be well, nevertheless, to say in general terms that the exhibits fill the classification as it stands. This classifica- tion will embrace subjects of scientific inquiry as well as of fisheulture; also the maps showing the fishing grounds and the distribution of species. Following these, it was intended to illustrate the laws and other literature of sea fishing and angling, also to show pictures, emblems and various other things connected therewith. Then we come to the fresh-water fishing and angling, which covers all the various appliances and methods used either for sport fish- ing or commercial fishing in the great lakes or other in- terior waters. Following this was a group which embraced the whole subject of the preparation of the fishery pro- ducts and the products themselves, and last, one including fishculture and scientific study of the matters relating thereto. In various ways the first group has been very completely filled. Not only have we live fish and other forms of aquatic life in the main aquarial building and in the exhibits from Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, but there are innumerable varieties of fish and other animals which are pursued by fishermen, appearing as mounted specimens in casts and represented by paintings and photographs and otherwise. The fishing grounds are also illustrated by certain exhibitors. It is hardly necessary, I believe, to say to any one who has visited the Fisheries Building that the gear of all countries, the apparatus used for capture, is well represented. A very interesting collection to me is that of the fishing craft, vessels and boats. Not only can we see the rude dug-outs, skin boats and bark canoes which were in use in 126 this country at the time Columbus discovered this conti- nent, but we also have before us representations of fishing vessels and fishing boats from nearly all countries that are commercially interested in fishing. I deem it a matter for special congratulation that Russia has sent here the largest collection of fishing vessels which I believe she has ever sent anywhere, and Brazil has many things which are unique and interesting, though they are primitive. As to products and methods of preparation, they are quite as numerously illustrated as the fishing gear: The only thing I have discovered that is wrong in connection with the exhibit is that some visitors entering the Fisher- ies Building mistake the odor of sea birds and fish for that of nets, lines, etc., and it is not uncommon to see noses put up when they enter the building. Fishculture is illustrated by some of the States, Penn- sylvania and Wisconsin particularly, which not only show representations of the hatcheries, but place before the pub- lic the results of the work which has been accomplished by propagation. Norway, too, has sent models and drawings of her hatcheries and specimens of the apparatus used in fish- culture in that country. In the Government Building the United States Commission has a more complete exhibit in this direction, I believe, than has ever been brought to- gether previously, and the actual propagation of fish ar- tificially has been carried on since the opening of the Ex- position. It will be seen, therefore, that the fisheries exhibit, taken as a whole, pretty nearly fills the bill; and though it may not realize all that some of us hoped for, while it may not come up to that ideal which might be fixed, I believe it will prove one of the most instructive object lessons to be found at this Exposition. The importance of this exhibit from an educational standpoint is beyond computation. I have seen children stand with the utmost interest making 127 inquiries about the live fish, the fishing boats, and I don’t know which has the greater attraction for them. I believe all of you realize what an attractive thing a finely rigged model is toa boy. I have been surprised at the intelli- gence shown by some of the school children in regard to these objects. But it is not alone this fact that makes this exhibit of consequence tous. This is the first fish expo- sition, if I may be permitted to use the term, that has ever been held in this country, and it is the first opportunity which those engaged in the fisheries and fishculture have had to bring to the attention of the millions of our citizens the subjects in which they are interested, in such a way as to leave a lasting impression. How important that is I need not say. I believe there is no person who does not fully appreciate it. Many of you have been giving the best years of your lives to the work intended to maintain the abundance of fish in our streams, and thereby to im- prove our fisheries ; but you might be surprised if you re- alized how little comparatively is known of this by the public at large, and how few of our people who are directly dependent for a livelihood appreciate it to its full extent. If, therefore, this exhibit of the fisheries, of fish and fish- culture at this great World’s Fair tends to improve the knowledge of our people in matters relating to these sub- jects, then the labor, worry and anxiety which have at- tended the assembling of these, collections and the getting of them into place will not have been in vain. I hope, also, it will be possible for many of our people who are engaged in the commercial fisheries to come here and study the collections which have been so generously brought to this Exposition by the distant countries of the earth. Though we have made many advances in fisheries in the United States, as in other industries, it certainly is not safe for us to assume that we know it all. There may be useful lessons to be learned by making a critical examina- tion of the objects which have been brought here. I was 128 both pleased and surprised when the exhibit from Norway was being installed to find there was a product consisting of the tanned skin of a fish, one of the commonest fishes we have on the Atlantic coast, which is beautiful, and which we had never thought of utilizing. I observe that Russia also has the same thing, together with various things made of this skin. I refer to the skin of the com- mon wall-fish, as it is called in New England, catfish. In the department of angling, I think there is much which will interest the disciples of Izaak Walton. I deem it especially appropriate, tgo, that the gentlemen inter- ested in fishing for sport and in gaining that specially ' pleasing recreation which can be found only on streams and ponds and lakes and ocean, will see immediately in front of the cases containing rods, reels, flies and the other paraphernalia in which they delight, what the fishculturist is doing to fill the streams and make it possible for the present and future generations to gain health in trying to reduce the numbers of fish in our waters. This morning we had a very interesting paper from Dr. Borodine showing graphically the relative importance of fishculture as carried on by this and other countries. Those figures speak for themselves, and it needs no words of mine to emphasize them. I may, nevertheless, be par- doned for expressing my feelings on the importance of this work as bearing upon the success of our commercial fisheries and the health and well-being of those thousands who only seek recreation and relief from exhausting work on the banks of our interior waters or along our coast line. To-day we have a large country, sparsely settled in certain sections, but, nevertheless, it is apparent to all of you gentlemen who have been connected with this work that there is danger of depletion of those species of fish which inhabit our interior waters. Our population is in- creasing at a phenomenal rate, and the day is not far dis- tant when the food of the future man will depend largely 129 upon the success of the fishculturist ; and he will have to thank those of you who are now engaged in this work for laying the foundation sof your work so broad as you have, and for throwing so much effort into the work as you have. Personally, I think the fishermen and the public at large will grow to appreciate this as the years pass by, and if, as I hope, they will join heartily in the work of co-operation, much can be accomplished which now seems impossible. MHE ANGLING, EXHIBIT, AT THE: WORLDIS FAIR. BY DR. JAMES A. HENSHALL. Mr. PRESIDENT AND MEMBERS OF THE AMERICAN FIsH- ERIES SgcieTy: As the time is very short, and I speak en- tirely without preparation, I shall detain you but a mo- ment. Perhaps it would be better were I not to detain you at all, as it is intimated President Harrison is to be here soon. However, I will state in as few words as possible some of the matters of interest connected with the angling ex- hibit, drawing your attention to some few things that I would like you to see when you visit it. The western annex, called the Angling Pavilion, was originally intended to be filled with angling tools and utensils and accessories, but last fall it was thought de- sirable to give up a part of the room to Stateexhibits. At present, therefore, only about one-half of the building is occupied by anglers’ appliances. I can hardly hope to interest the members of this Society in matters relating solely to angling. While the exhibit is a small one, it is a very character- istic exhibit of angling goods which are manufactured to- 130 day, and while it fills the bill, as Capt. Collins has just remarked, it does not fill the building. In the first place, there is a collection of split-hamboo rods which I believe is the finest collection in the world. And they are practical rods, running in price from $25 to $75, although there are some which, by the addition of gold and silver, will run up possibly to $400 or $500. I desire to specially call your attention to two rods made by the inventor of the split-bamboo rod. Of course, every gentleman here understands the nature of split-bamboo rods. This rod was invented by an old trout fisherman of eastern Pennsylvania, an old gunsmith, who used to fish every Saturday of his life, after he was old enough, and who was a very excellent and fine workman. He used to spend his hours in the evening in his shop making his fishing rods, Uncle Sam Phillipi, and I have two or three of his rods. His first rods were rather rude as compared with rods as now made, but in his day were examples of fine rod making. Then we have, as I said before, rods running in price | from $25 to $75, although you find in the tackle stores rods as low in price as $1.50, but those you understand are made from the cullings of the cane. In the manufacture of split-bamboo rods there are only a few canes in a hun- dred fit to go into rods of first quality, and it all takes time to sort the canes, and it costs money. We also have a collection of steel rods which have been brought to a very high state of perfection. There is also a fine collection of bethabara rods. There is also a fine display of reels. We have the finest reels made in this country, and America excels the world in the manufacture of fine goods in this line. We have Kentucky reels of modern make, and we have a collection of old Kentucky reels which are from fifty to seventy-five years old. There you can see the evolution from the first reel made by the old man Snyder down to the present reel. 131 We have, too, some very pretty girls who make a splen- did exhibit themselves, where high flyers can see the fly- tyers. We have a manufactory there of fishing lines that is quite interesting and is well worth visiting. There is a very fine exhibit of baits and trolling spoons, and with this exhibit we have the first trolling spoon that was ever made... In addition to the multiplying reels, we have an automatic reel which is fancied by some fishermen. Of course, there is a large collection of other fishing tackle. In addition to this, we have a collection of literature on angling in the way of books that have been published in this country. There are also exhibited angling trophies, including the largest tarpon ever taken on a rod, the fish weighing 205 pounds, which was taken by a lady, Mrs. Stagg. There is one thing I did not speak of,a very ingeniously contrived glass cylinder for inclosing a live minnow. The cylinder is surrounded by a chevauz de frise of hooks, and of course the glass does not show in the water. In other words, it is ‘‘ carrying your bait in a bottle.’ There are several articles in the exhibit which are of interest aside from those of which I have spoken, but I cannot “stop to enumerate them all. I would like to call atten- tion, however, to a patent reel-seat, which was invented by our worthy President, as among the things I would like to have you see. I hope the Society will take occasion to examine all these articles at their leisure. 132 FISHCULTURE IN MICHIGAN. BY, WHO POST. In this year,of reminiscences, it may not be amiss to briefly review the work done in fishculture in Michigan. The record of this work is found in ten biennial reports of the State Fish Commission. This record, presumably like that of other States, shows some blunders, frequent mis- takes, and many sad disappointments ; but by persistence, energy and pluck, the blunders were overcome and the mistakes corrected, and the disappointments were borne with that Christian resignation which is a characteristic of the craft. As an illustration of this spirit of resignation, a quotation from the Second Report is in point. It says: ‘*Now what is our lake and river farmer to do about it, when accident and insuperable force so confront him? What can he do more than did the honest Dutchman who, when he broke his leg, thanked the good Lord that it was not his neck. Few mortals, if any, can create circum- stances, and the fishculturist’s work, like all other human work, must take its chances.”’ The outcome has been a steady and continuous progress, resulting in a fair degree of success. The Board of Fish Commissioners of the State was established by an act of the Legislature approved April 9, 1873. At this time seventeen other States had embarked upon the work. The first Board of Michigan consisted of the Governor and the two appointed members, who were to hold office until the expiration of the next regular session of the Leg- islature. Their duty was stated to be “‘ to select a suitable location for a State fish breeding establishment for the ar- tificial propagation and cultivation of whitefish and such other kinds of the better class of food fishes as they may direct, upon the best terms possible.’? They were required to appoint a Superintendent of Fisheries of the State, and 133 to supervise generally the fishing interests and secure the enforcement of all the laws relating to the protection of fish and fisheries in the State. The fact that the whitefish was the only one specifically named in the organic act in- dicates the regard the people of the State had for this fish, and it has been often since cited as an argument against any neglect of that branch of the work. The Governor at the time this legislation was enacted was Hon. John J. Bagley, of Detroit, whose interest and appreciation of the work had much to do with the passage of the law, as well as with the public interest in the sub- ject and the early success of the Commission. His asso- ciates on the first Board were Andrew J. Kellogg and George Clark, the latter of whom had an experience of al- most half a century in catching whitefish in the waters of the State. The first Board was singularly fortunate in securing as Superintendent the enthusiastic and untiring George H. Jerome, whose spicy and vigorous contributions to the literature of the subject contained in the early reports of the Commission have won the admiration of each succeed- ing Board and of every appreciative reader. The salary of the Superintendent was limited by the act to twelve hundred dollars, but the meagreness of the com- pensation did not hinder this enthusiast from giving to the work all the energy and ability he possessed. He was the life and spirit of the Board so long as he retained his place. The following words from the First Report of the Com- mission are deemed worthy of quotation: ‘‘The water world, subject year by year to new discovery and to a larger development, may be implicitly relied upon in the years to come to contribute a much larger quota of food than at any pre-existing period. This. as viewed from the fishculturist’s stand point, is believed to be not merely pos- sible, but highly probable. Indeed, this is the fish prob- 134 lem, nothing more, nothing less; and to the solution of this problem the veteran band of fishculturists, with the appliances at hand, and with a will and courage equal to every conceivable emergency, have gone to work, resolved not to lay down their tools till every promise of theirs is redeemed and every prophecy fulfilled.”’ The appropriation for the first two years was seventy- five hundred dollars a year. With this fund the Commis- sion established a State hatchery at Crystal Springs, Poka- gon, Cass County, on the Methodist camp-meeting grounds, and built a hatchery 20 by 60 feet, one story high, with a roomy attic, and a small residence for the overseer. The earlier efforts of the Commission were devoted somewhat to the propagation and planting of several kinds of foreign fish—the Atlantic salmon, the land-locked salmon, the California salmon and the shad ; and we are constrained to believe that much faith and enthusiasm, as well as labor and money, was wasted in the effort to acclimate these for- eigners to the waters of Michigan. The whitefish, how- ever, was never overlooked or neglected. The first plant of whitefish was in the spring of 1874, and it exceeded a million and a half, which was greater than the plant of all other kinds. These whitefish were hatched at the hatchery of N. W. Clark, at Clarkston, Oakland County. In the spring of 1875, there were hatched at the State hatchery at Pokagon about 150,000 whitefish, and about two millions were bought of N.W. Clark & Son, of North- ville, at the price of one dollar a thousand. The plant was upwards of twenty-two hundred thousand. In the fall of 1876 a small whitefish hatchery, 20 by 50 feet, was built on a leased lot near the water works on At- water Street, in Detroit, and the experiment tried of using the city water. Oren M. Chase was put in charge of this hatchery. The hatching was done at first in the Holton 135 hatching-box, for the use of which a royalty of $100 a year was paid. _ In the spring of 1876 nearly ten million whitefish were hatched, and the plant in Michigan was nine million three hundred and ten thousand. The rather boastful mention of this then unparalleled hatch in the Second Report of the Commission is some- what amusing in the light of what is now being done in that line. In the organic act provision was made for co-operation with other States contiguous to the waters of Michigan, which should make appropriations for the work and ex- press a desire for joint action; and in the report of 1876 mention is made that several of the States bordering upon the Great Lakes, notably Ohio, Wisconsin and Minnesota, ‘‘have got sharply to work upon the whitefish.” The planting of salmon trout was begun in 1875, when one hundred and fifty thousand fry were purchased of N. W. Clark & Son, at the price of two dollars a thousand, and planted in the inland lakes of the State. The work on the Atlantic, the California and the land-locked salmon continued through the seasons of 1875 and 1876. In the meantime, Eli R. Miller, of Richland, had succeeded Gov- ernor Bagley as Commissioner, and was made President of the Board, the statute having been so amended as to pro- vide for three Commissioners, one for two years, one for four years and one for six years, and their successors to be appointed to a term of six yearseach. The appropriations for 1875 and 1876 were seven thousand dollars for each year. Twenty-two States were at this time more or less actively engaged in fishculture. In 1877, the whitefish plant exceeded eight millions. Some experiments were made in hatching the herring and the German whitefish. In the Third Report the Commis- sion congratulates itself that while it had paid a dollar a thousand for hatching whitefish, it now was producing 136 them at a cost of not to exceed ten cents a thousand. The Chase automatic jar, an invention patented by Oren M. Chase, had now taken the place of the hatching-box, and was the means of greatly cheapening the production. The hatching of lake trout and of California salmon and land-locked salmon was continued through the years 1877 and 1878, and experiments were made with the grayling, though with indifferent success. In 1877 the planting of eels was first inaugurated. They were taken in the Hudson, near Troy, and transported in cans. In the Third Report the Superintendent concludes the California salmon is too large a fish for the great bulk of the inland lakes, and should be planted mainly in the rivers emptying into the Great Lakes. The brook trout work commences about this time at the hatchery at Po- kagon, the take being from two to three hundred thou- sand eggs. On October 14, 1877, George Clark died, and was suc- ceeded by Dr. Joel C. Parker, of Grand Rapids, who con- tinued as Commissioner by successive appointments until January 1, 1893. _He held the office of Commissioner con- tinuously longer than any other member, and gave much valuable work and thought to the subject of fishculture. The appropriations for the years 1877 and 1878 were seven thousand dollars a year. Twenty-eight States were now engaged in fishculture. The plant of whitefish for 1878 reached the figures of upwards of twelve and a half millions, and for 1879 upwards of fourteen and a half millions. During these two years the work on California and land-locked salmon and trout and eels continued, and two new varieties, the German carp and the California or rainbow trout were introduced. The appropriations for the years 1879 and 1880 were cut down to five thousand a year. On July 1, 1879, George H. Jerome resigned as Superintendent, and was succeeded September 15, 1879, by James G. Portman, of Watervliet, 137 Berrien county, and the only one of the old employees re- tained was Oren M. Chase, who had been overseer of the Detroit hatchery from its start. Up to this time a considerable plant of whitefish fry had been made each year in several of the inland lakes of the State. No extensive reports of the favorable results of such planting coming to the Commission, the planting was thereafter confined to the Great Lakes and the rivers and straits connecting them, and such interior lakes as con- tained native whitefish; and thus another undoubted mistake was corrected. The Commission becoming con- vinced that the brook trout was capable of a much wider range throughout the State than was formerly supposed, began to give additional attention to raising and distribut- ing this popular fish. The Fourth Report bravely sug- gests that not less than a million brook trout fry should be hatched yearly for Michigan streams. A few black bass were hatched and planted, and some experiments made in hybridization. Renewed efforts were also made to accomplish something for the grayling, but without success. About this time the few remaining adult California sal- mon were turned loose; his exit was preceded by that of the Atlantic salmon, and his by that of the shad, and thus was another mistake corrected. The land-locked salmon struggled along a few years later, but his name has since been stricken from the list. In the summer of 1880, the Detroit hatchery was re- modeled, and the last of the Holton boxes discarded and their places supplied with the Chase jars, giving a total of three hundred jars and a hatching capacity of more than thirty million whitefish fry. Six of these jars were exhibited by Prof. Baird at the International Exposition at Berlin, and Mr. Chase secured the “‘ golden medal of honor”’ for the invention. About this time the trout and salmon in the ponds at Pokagon began to sicken and die, 138 and ananalysis of the water demonstrated that it was not suitable for the trout work; and thereupon ground and water was rented at Boyne Falls, where through the liberality of Hon. Thos. 8. Cobb, of Kalamazoo, a tempor- ary hatchery was located. After one season’s use, how- ever, the dam was carried away by a freshet and the hatchery abandoned. The carp were retained at Pokagon for a while, but were soon after removed to Glenwood, where the carp hatchery has since been carried on under the supervision of Mr. Worden Wells, in ponds belonging to him, and with unvarying success. The whitefish plant for 1880 was ten million six hun- dred and ninety-five thousand, and for 1881 only three millions. The cause of the falling off was the difficulty in procuring the ova on account of storms, and the failure of the Detroit river fishery, where the fish had theretofore been obtained. About this time the methods of securing the ova were much improved under the suggestion and ex- periments of Oren M. Chase, who found it feasible to re- tain the fish in small crates through which the water flowed freely, and to handle the fish from day to day, and take the eggs when ripe, thus making a great saving of the eggs and resulting in but trifling injury to the adult fish. In July, 1881, the trout station at Paris, Mecosta county, was located on Cheeney Creek, and about 40 acres of land and the meander of the creek 15 rods wide across 120 acres more were purchased. Here in the early fall of that year was built a trout hatchery 20 by 60 feet, a dwelling house and barn; and the hatchery and ponds at Pokagon were abandoned. The principal trout work of the State has been conducted at the Paris station ever since without any serious drawbacks. The work, however, has now about reached the limit of the water supply, and one neighboring stream 139 has already been brought over in pump logs, and it is con- templated doing the same with another. The whitefish plant of 1882 was upwards of eighteen millions. That spring, the experiment was first made with the wall-eyed pike, and a plant was made of eleven hun- dred and twenty thousand. The Board had some difficulty with Superintendent Portman, and in September, 1882, he was succeeded as Superintendent by Oren M. Chase. Mr. Chase served until November 11, 1883, when he was drowned in Little Tra- verse Bay, while in the performance of his duties, sacrifi- ing his life in his zeal for the work. Walter D. Marks was then made acting Superintendent until March 26, 1884, when he was regularly appointed Superintendent; and continued to act in that capacity until the early part of 1893, when he resigned. Mr. Marks was an early pupil of the veteran Seth Green, and was a man of large ex- perience in handling the breeding fish. He was full of re- sources and always found some way out of every difficulty that beset his work. January 1, 1883, Eli R. Miller retired as Commissioner at the expiration of his term, and John H. Bissell, of De- troit, was appointed his successor. The work had reached a somewhat low ebb at this period and needed just such an energetic, thoughtful and practical man as he proved to be, to give itanewimpulse. Itis no disparagement of any one else to say that Mr. Bissell is entitled to as large a degree of credit as any one for such success as the es Fish Commission has attained. The appropriation for 1881 was eight thousand dollars, and for 1882 seven thousand five hundred dollars.- In the fall of 1883, the work of obtaining accurate statistical in- formation as to the amount and value of the commercial fisheries of the State was commenced ina small way. The - whitefish plant of 1883 was twenty-three million seven hundred and thirty-five thousand, and that of 1884, thirty- 140 seven million seven hundred and fifty thousand. The brook trout plant of 1883 was two hundred and sixty-nine thousand, and that of 1884 was three hundred and fifty- three thousand. : In the Sixth Report it is again urged that there ought to be hatching-house room sufficient for at least a million brook trout. In 1883 a new site was chosen at the corner of Joseph Campau avenue and Lafayette (now Champlain) street, for the Detroit whitefish station. This site is 100 feet square. The lots were rented, and a hatchery 40 by 80 feet built with a shop and barn 30 by 46 feet in the rear along the alley. This building cost about fifty-six hun- dred dollars, and was equipped entirely with Chase jars. It held 812 jars, with a hatching capacity of about forty- two million whitefish eggs. About this time more land was purchased near the trout station at Paris, and the ponds increased and grounds much improved. In August, 1883, a whitefish hatching station was es- tablished at Petoskey, upon leased grounds, but for var- ious reasons, principally connected with the condition and quality of the water supply, this proved another mistake, and a somewhat costly one, too. Without going into de- tail, suffice it to say that this hatchery, after being used two or three years, had to be abandoned. As early as 1883, a movement was inaugurated towards the establish- ment of a whitefish and trout hatching station upon Lake Superior, but it did not result in anything tangible until several years later. In October, 1883, a meeting was held at Detroit of the Fishery Commissioners of the States bordering the Great Lakes, upon invitation of the Michigan Commission. Com- missioners attended from Minnesota, Wisconsin, Ohio and Michigan, and a representative of the United States Fish Commissioner was present. A movement to secure uni- formity of legislation led to the consideration of the sub- ject of Federal supervision of the fisheries of the Great 141 Lakes. At the request of the Michigan Fish Commission, Mr. Otto Kirchner, then Attorney-General of the State, ex- amined the authorities and presented an able brief to the point that the Federal Government had no jurisdiction of the subject, and that such protection as we had must come from the authorities of the several States. This conference was productive of much good feeling, and undoubtedly helped on the work of uniform legislation of the several States bordering the Great Lakes for the protection of the fishing interests. In February, 1883, a Secretary of the Board was ap- pointed for the first time. Herschel Whitaker was ap- pointed and served until June 1, 1884, when he resigned and Andrew J. Kellogg succeeded him. Mr. Kellogg served until March 20, 1888, when he was succeeded by George D. Mussey, who has served ever since. On the resignation of Mr. Kellogg as Commissioner, to take the appointment as Secretary, Mr. Whitaker was appointed Commissioner in his place, and has continued in office to the present time. The combination of Mr. Whitaker, Mr. Bissell and Dr. Parker made a strong Board, and from this time on a new impetus was given to the work. The business was organized and the work classified and sys- tematized as it never had been before. Through their in- fluence larger appropriations were obtained and the work extended in every department. The Commission in 1884 obtained control of one of the fisheries on the Detroit river, and this policy has been ex- tended until now they control all the fisheries on the American side of the river. The Sixth Report sums up the condition of fishculture in 1884 as follows: ‘‘The present aspect of this subject is far different in many respects from what its advocates and promoters of ten or more years ago believed it would be at this time. The general enthusiasm of the early movement as it seized upon the naturalist and sportsman 142 of ten or fifteen years ago in the blush of its first success- ful experiments has not entirely faded away, but has rip- ened into a deep conviction on the part of an ever-increas- ing number of intelligent men, that fishculture has solved one half of the question, Can the fisheries be preserved ? and has now settled down upon business-like principles and methods to do its part. The other half of that ques- tion must depend for its answer upon wise measures for protection. This is true of almost every State and Terri- tory in the Union.’’ The appropriations for 1883 and 1884 were ten thousand dollars for building and equipping new stations, and ten thousand dollars a years for current ex- penses. In August, 1885, Mr. Lyman A. Brant was appointed statistical agent for the Board and visited all the commer- cial fisheries of the State, and made a full report in writing of his work, which was much the best of its kind that had thus far been done, and afforded the Commission much needed information. The whitefish plant for 1885 was forty millions, and for 1886 was sixty-one million six hundred and twenty thou- sand; afew Loch Leven trout were planted and the plants of California trout were continued, but the adult fish did not do well in the stock ponds, and many of them were liber- ated. Further experiments with the grayling were con- tinued ; a large portion of a grayling stream was stocked with them and barriers erected to prevent their escape, and every inducement provided for them to spawn in a semi-wild or natural state, but the experiment was a fail- ure. Additional ponds were built at the Paris station and the grounds otherwise improved by grading and sodding. Further agitation was given to the question of the Upper Peninsula whitefish station. A scheme of systematic ex- amination of all the inland waters of the State seriatim was inaugurated. For this purpose a double crew of men was sent into the field, and charts of each lake examined 143 were made and filed in the office, to be bound in books. These charts contain a rough sketch of the shape of the lake, give their name and location, dates of examination, kind of bottom and shores, temperature at top and bottom and surroundings, number and kinds of fish caught and how, their condition and what feeding upon, the kinds and condition of fish food inthe water, and recommend- ation as to kinds of fish to plant. This work has been continued each year until at present there are complete re- cords of upwards of four hundred lakes which have been examined, the reports of which are bound together in vol- umes indexed and easy of reference. These volumes are consulted in passing upon applications for fish plants in the waters. The capacity of the trout hatching house at Paris has already reached a million and a half, and a new house is recommended to increase the capacity to three and a half millions. The hatching and planting of whitefish, brook trout, lake trout, wall-eyed pike, carp, Loch Leven trout, land- locked salmon and California trout was continued through the years 1887 and 1888. In 1887 the first plant of German trout was made, and the rearing of this fish has been con- tinued ever since and much increased in later years. It seems to thrive in Michigan waters and has every appear- ance of being a hardy and a vigorous importation. In 1887 a new additional trout hatching house 40 by 824 feet was built at Paris, at a cost of about $4,000 for the house and fittings. The old hatching house was disman- tled, but remains standing and is used for a store house and shop, It is capable of being restored and put in com- mission again on short notice and at small cost, if needed. The capacity of the Detroit whitefish house was increased by the addition of the jars removed from Petoskey, so that it now contains 525 jars, which would hatch eighty to ninety millions of whitefish a year. 144 In 1888 the Commission had a car built for transporting fry and fish. It is over 55 feet long and substantially built, with passenger coach trucks, air brakes, platforms, coupler and buffers, so that it can be easily hauled in any passenger train. It has an office at one end and a kitchen at the other, and is fitted with five berths, enabling the men to live and sleep on the car. Its capacity is 175 cans. Tt isnamed ‘“‘Attikumaig,’’ the Chippewa name for the whitefish, meaning literally the ‘‘deer of the water.” This car has proved a great convenience, and has been the means of cheapening the distribution of fish and fry. It has been in continual use from February till the latter part of June of every year since it was built. The plant of whitefish in 1887 was seventy-two million nine hundred and eighty-four thousand, and in 1888 about the same number. The brook trout plant in 1887 reached one mil- lion, and in 1888 was over a million and a half. The wall- eyed pike plant of 1887 was three million two hundred and eighty thousand, and in 1888 eleven million four hundred and ninety-two thousand. Mr. Bissell’s term of office expired January 1, 1889, and Hoyt Post, of Detroit, was appointed his successor. On March 20, 1888, Mr. Kellogg resigned as Secretary, and the present Secretary, George D. Mussey, succeeded him. In 1888 and 1889, the Secretary made trips of investiga- ion of the fisheries and filed written reports, which are printed in the biennial reports of the Commissioners. In January, 1890, Mr. 8. C. Palmer continued this work on a more extended scale. During the years 1891 and 1892, Mr. Charles H. Moore engaged in similar work for the Commission and obtained complete reports of every fish- ery in the State, his work being as complete as could be made. Experiments were made in hatching sturgeon eggs, and a few were successfully hatched. A successful hatch was also made of the eggs of white bass. These eggs are very small and hatch in about forty-eight hours. 145 Subsequently larger quantities were successfully hatched in the Chase jar. The Commission has made several fish exhibits, embrac- ing nearly all varieties of native fish, at the State Fair and the Detroit Exposition, and elsewhere. These exhibits were comparatively inexpensive and were very attractive, and proved valuable aids in disseminating knowledge of fish and fishculture. The Report of 1890 was the first illustrated Report issued. It contains cuts illustrating the hauling of the seine, and the stripping of fish, and interior and exterior views of the hatcheries, and of the ponds and grounds at Paris, which added much to the attractiveness of the Report. Some attention now began to be given to scientific work, and Prof. Jacob Reighard, of the University of Michigan, began his investigation of the development of the wall- eyed pike. The motive that first led to this investigation was the discovery of the cause of the large percentage of loss in hatching the eggs of this fish, as compared with those of the whitefish. He made extended microscopical examinations and accompanied the men in the field and followed the eggs to the hatchery and watched their de- velopment and hatching. He reduced his observations to writing, furnishing an article of upwards of 60 pages, with microscopical drawings, which was published in the Ninth Report, with platesand drawings. Thisarticle is regarded as a most valuable contribution to the literature of fish- culture and has been in great demand. Prof. Reighard also conducted like experiments with whitefish eggs. He also accompanied the crews for examination of waters with his microscopes and an assistant and a botanist, and made quite extensive examinations of the fish food and aquatic plants, and incidentally of some fish parasites. He also prepared a still more elaborate article on the develop- ment of the embryo of the wall-eyed pike, covering about eighty pages, which with the plates illustrating it are pub- 146 lished with the Tenth Report. He is at present inaugur- ating some experiments connected with the food of the whitefish, and its life and abundance, and when and how distributed, which it is hoped will be of value in determin- ing the proper places for planting the whitefish fry. It is designed to make this examination as careful and ex- haustive as the means at hand will allow, and it is planned to interest the authorities of the University of Michigan, to co-operate with the Commission in extending work of this scientific nature from time to time. No work of the Commission has attracted wider attention among intelli- gent readers than the work already done by Prof. Reig- hard. A boiler and pump were added to the Detroit hatchery for use in case of an emergency causing the stoppage of the flow of the city water, such as had been once or twice experienced. By this means the water in the storage tanks could be on short notice pumped up into the troughs which feed the hatching jars and keep the water circulat- ing through the eggs until the stoppage of the regular flow of the city water ceased. The storage tank capacity of the hatchinghouse was also nearly doubled by enlarg- ing the wing of the building. In the summer and fall of 1889, the efficiency of the De- troit whitefish hatchery was doubled by the erection of two additional frames of jars, which increased the number of jars in place to one thousand and fifty, with a hatching capacity of nearly two hundred millions; but the difficulty of obtaining sufficient ova to fill the jars prevented for a year or two reaping the full benefit of the increased capa- city. The whitefish plant in 1889 was sixty-three millions, and in 1890 one hundred million seven hundred thousand. The wall-eyed pike plant of 1889 was forty-four million three hundred and forty thousand, and in 1890 twenty- two million three hundred thousand. The brook trout plant of 1889 was two million four hundred and sixty- 147 eight thousand, and in 1890 two million five hundred and seventy-eight thousand. The appropriations by this time had increased to upwards of twenty thousand dollars a year, and the inventory of the property of the Commission showed a valuation of upwards of thirty-five thousand dollars. The Tenth Report covers the years 1891 and 1892, and is a substantial volume of 228 pages. In the fall of 1891 a small hatchery for whitefish, lake trout and brook trout was established at Sault Ste. Marie, containing 200 jars, besides such hatching troughs as the space in the building would admit. The city paid the rent of a small store building in which this batchery was set up, and furnished city water free. This hatchery was run during the seasons of 1891 and 1892, but owing to difficulty and disappoint- ment in procuring whitefish ova, was not filled until 1892. The purpose of a whitefish hatchery on Lake Superior, was to provide for stocking that great lake; the hatch at the Detroit house coming too early to be planted on ac- count of the ice in the harbors. It was thought that the difference in the temperature of Lake Superior water would retard the hatch about two or three weeks, which proved to be the fact. The water at the Sault proved admirably adapted to the work, both of hatching whitefish and brook trout. The temperature of the water is remarkably even and cold. It began Novem- ber 15, at 42°, and for the month ensuing varied from 42° to 88°, and about January 1, ran down to 34°, where it remained without variation to exceed one degree either way until April 20, and from then until May 15 it did not go above 40°. A daily record of the temperature of the water is kept at each station while in operation. The appropriations for 1891 and 1892 exceeded $27,000 a year, and those just granted for the years 1893 and 1894 are $25,000 a year. The inventory of the property has in- creased to nearly $38,000. 148 Never till the fall of 1892 had the Detroit hatchery been completely filled with eggs. In that year the Commission controlled all the fisheries on the Michigan side of the Detroit river, and instead of letting them out to others to fish, hired the fishermen and absolutely controlled and directed the fishing. Through the energy, persistence and skill of the Super- intendent, W. D. Marks, in conducting this work, more fish were caught and more eggs taken than had ever been before. The total number of whitefish caught was 13,074, the total eggs taken was 4,544 quarts or 142 bushels, mak- ing 173,630,400 eggs. It was a beautiful and inspiring sight to look upon the tiers of jars in the Detroit house, more than a thousand in number, all filled and in active operation. It is a sight never equalled elsewhere and but once there. The whitefish hatchery at Detroit is undoubtedly the largest, best arranged, best equipped, most economical and most efficient in the world. No other has begun to compete with it in out-put. And there are few, if any, brook trout hatcheries that excel the one at Paris. The whitefish eggs are placed in the jars in November and December, and remain from 130 to 140 days, or until March and April, before they hatch; and the fry are no more than out of the way before the same jars are filled with the eggs of the wall-eyed pike, which are placed in the jars in April and May, and hatch in 28 or 30 days, coming out the last of May and first of June. It has been the habit of the Board for the past few years to hold regular monthly meetings and such special meet- ings as may be found necessary, and full records are kept in writing, in bound volumes, of the proceedings, includ- ing everything of interest in fishculture which comes to the attention or knowledge of the members from time to time. Full books of account are kept of all the money trans- actions. All payments are by checks signed by the mem- 149 ber of the auditing committee who certifies to the account, and vouchers in duplicate are taken for all payments. William A. Butler, Jr., of Detroit, has been Treasurer of the Commission since about 1883. Bound volumes are kept of the statistical reports and examining crews: All applications for fish are in writing on printed blanks furnished, which describe the location and character and temperature and soundings of the water, and the surroundings where it is proposed to plant the fry. In January, 1893, the term of Dr. Parker expired and Horace W. Davis, of Grand Rapids, was appointed his successor. In December, 1892, an International Fish Conference was held at Detroit, under the auspices of the Michigan Commission. There were present Samuel Wilmot, of Ot- tawa, Canada ; Edward Harris, of Toronto ; Thomas Marks, of Port Arthur ;and W.S8. Wells, of Chatham, Ontario, and members of the Fish Commissions of New York, Ohio, Min- nesota, Maine, and many others from different States, in- cluding some fishermen. The subjects discussed were connected with uniformity of legislation protecting fish and game, and more particularly the vital question of a close season for the commercial fish. The main results of the meeting were embodied in a report of a committee which was adopted as follows, viz: ‘J, That all small fish and others unfit for food of all kinds, when taken in nets, should be replaced in the waters when taken alive; that fishermen should not be allowed to take such fish on shore nor expose them for sale. *‘2. That no strings of pound nets used in the lakes shall extend more than four miles from shore. ‘¢3,. That one-half part of all channels between islands or elsewhere—where fish migrate to spawn, shall be kept free from nets of all kinds at all seasons. 150 ‘‘4. That all whitefish taken of less than sixteen inches in length, and all salmon trout less than two pounds in weight, shall be immediately returned to the waters where taken and shall not be exposed for sale. ‘5. That the month of November in each year be made a close season for whitefish, herring and salmon or lake trout. ~ ‘6, That all penalties fixed for violation of any laws that shall be enacted shall be made not only to apply to those who take fish, but also to all persons who buy, sell, transport or have the same in possession.”’ The following resolution was also passed, viz.: *¢ Resolved, That the law should authorize the seizure and destruction of nets used in violation of law.” Throughout all the ten reports of the Commission are frequent acknowledgments of courtesies and exchanges with the Commissions of other States, and especially with the United States Commissioner, to whom the Michigan Commission is under many and acknowleged obligations for continued favors and grants of eggs and fry, and fish of varieties that could not be elsewhere procured. The Michigan Commission would be guilty of gross in- gratitude and lack of appreciation if it ever permitted any account of its work to go forth without due acknowledg- ment of its obligations to the railroads of the State, with- out whose aid, given for the asking and without stint, it could never have accomplished anywhere near what it has. Ever since the organization of the Commission it has at each legislative session given much time and attention to procuring the passage of proper protective legislation to preserve the fisheries ; but it seems much easier to get leg- islation through to propagate fish than to lay any restric- tions upon the catching. As against any such restrictions an active and not over-scrupulous lobby always appears on the scene, and cries out about the ruin and destruction of 151 their property and investments, and who ever knew a leg- islature that was proof against such a plea. Appended to this article is a complete table of the totals of all plants of fish of all kinds that have been made by the Michigan Commission, taken from their Tenth Report: TOTAL PLANTS OF BROOK TROUT IN FOURTEEN YEARS. SUR) Sa A opggene oe oa aeoae IZAUUD. fas ck oocsopone coe bo> 719,000 ‘Sel Queedoos apnea moeceeers BUA USS Ses ceacosgesréa pos 1,090,000 issil SegokG ShopeconDDOodE Biot na Wl We diilete eas Samat oouued b\5Cric 1,639,000 ists Qow oa OmonoposOoaden iLO |) alee Gdn Sood Gorouo™ 2,468,000 USSB, Go lgsapesocogendusonc 1,000 | 1800) ecco cee ems vate fetes ey rOsUUO BE nist ce sas sah edo Shife: « a) SRO lee Sed. bode ss. coe 2,500,000 ist dig OM Gabonndrcacootnee ZAUSHUNO! |) hsb eae adGouseucoooorer 2,422,000 WMGIOIES bat 6 Goebel Gbdieu Beanusouoss cephobococodud 15,097,900 The above is a statement of the plants of brook trout made from the Paris station from and including 1879, the year in which the trout work of the Com- mission was removed from Pokagon to Paris. TOTAL PLANTS OF WHITEFISH. HS (Ameer y ehctars Srciailate nies eters WHS OOO ws USBDiac. cy cleeisets slemiecrs aie 40,000,000 PNPM te forse cyaler ca ateleiels erasauets 2,211,500 TSS Op oats wecesiets sate ta? oie 61,620,000 MESA Geihccis) esis Mueteeren OSLO OOO MLSSiteetiee oats «1 o-. 2,984,000 SNR IAe ace! sodiciec%e var nelsicie-s6 SHULODID) |) astiseaesho sono q00) oC 72,968,000 STS ate avatatalelbolavelerstelah tenes AG LOOOO? ||) MESO a kaecerecolatscisterstsralehe 63,000,000 1S ALS Reon Gis eece mace epee TARAS OOO! MN. TOO! sceketetecisiatel ste etecstetste 109,700,000 SES atans. ere" c. s/s /s/s\cirale,(ovs, a 'svele« 10,695,000 SOUP. teres c-ciotetans sara 104,000,000 ihsltikss S peeerneraeecieeenee 3,000,000 | 1892 (from Detroit station) 65,500,000 BUS yo atcteiers cos ctavel eycjctars evsiie« 18,170,000 | 1892 (from Sault Ste. MRSS mrsr ete chalga? e-cve Sectare cictere 23,735,000 Marie station),...... 9,724,000 MISS Ae era cysts aieia-cleresretie siete 37,750,000 MP Olsiletecesetcrtersisfere ctor te Wels sles Oe Barats cietsiatereeisnneevecs'« 740,965,500 MBS ates cigies ve siete ane es IAPICOD lee agedepooeo. Gooondc 44,340,000 MISS Anp tattcere le, 3<\asic/s/ejajorerays ZIOAMOOOM ESO Oat 2a oreyare/a14 sielereyaleysle 22,300,000 BIG en Ss cc ects oes snes aie ESOC OG LOO come nislereieie sis «lesley a 27,045,000 MS Umeeremyciets |) Fencccelee © BIPATTEOD) || ets oso sao oadddonac 57,300,000 MSS pecepetote(cceraiass. sinicialora.siete 11,492,000 wo “WOE Se Sriram otc Ge Cres Oe GOs EeataUr Op Bon Jessie LiUied. co TOTAL PLANTS OF CARP. 1 epee OH OAC Lee eee 1093-7 | AUSSO Nees | ois oy erase ctaywiasisiorinere's 3,490 SDSS) BoA Oo en ae DOSS | ALSGON. cmc: cpacer veie'a ste ons, ofslereeaetor 5,798 PRCA TEMPTS eter ott cya. n carer cavers e SrA SOILS. nas scrccaverels cal uty otacarsreretes 2,281 POR cas oie csc. cs a o/s. sia aierevaee DrBAB A NG BOO so ie orci cyapaua anata evencieirete 2,025 DROIT a/h cic Vecsey odie eierse 3,878 —_—_—_ PM CoS S co gos iu) o* Ane ctatelevefatotoletetetstcyole/cteotata ects aleletels Grid devioes 26,868 152 TOTAL PLANTS OF ATLANTIC SALMON. EES Aap we Gove lotayetatatnnnietst al Cele ote PUHOU! | WAG ede seca Mico tem eee 139,000 MU Gta sie sew eS capattas lolol te biciavare aia eiainia so aistare la aiete rete ie 160,350 Mere acaces a pteiaias asthe 208 12,000 | 1889..... J diate bu de Dee eee 4,000 1G In Qage AGS em price pa mae ae 000). 1 BOO eisai sens» sitemeter 16,000 13 S024 SEO Me oS SOs ear aeA cE 25,000 | 1890 (adults)....... bie agetaieee 475 BBO sccte. is wintel we htein es cleats 20,000 Oba! 5 aie oi clnsn'clein tein & pale’ sia pie viet dcarsha otinrs ata tate Rit ates eee 83,475 TOTAL PLANTS OF LOCH LEVEN TROUT. (CEC) A PR a a C0001 1880. os senna oy Ane 30,000 TRS MOH Ct erste 2 a ug Ul Lie 5,000 | = Mobilit hoe see dek betes cee gen a oer a 43,000 TOTAL PLANTS OF BROWN TROUT. “LSM eR aloe oe 20 O00 |) 1804 vars Yita vce drone cee 156,000 Oe eee BO;DGO. || ABOF cca ceed acca 271,500 Mota te cur sete ee! Deeb eT AY 507,500 NSA SES oi ene ae tre 15): O00) 1; TS86 0055. Cote Selle seer 490,000 MU Siiitesreara's @isteisters ss ieci wie ee 168,500 | 1889 (two years old)....... 13,000 MOU Gitercictrecie/tarecishe ie tae sities AS. 834) i SIB9ON 6 Fank OES ae 467 NS Gee keer stad ai ons erase 379,000 | 1892 (from Sault Ste. Marie SOO meant sishiloelete caret ‘wtots'e% 26,500 station). .4ceces see 204,000 GCI AGHAG WnmcankaeaeoAnn 215,000 - Motale-\'.. oc hok Sit Bele, tocsinne Srarece setae svete cle otal tsetse 2,080,301 bere Renata ernie Ga Se Acmeeiete FB AP BO0 PBB Ge ik See tas eceemiee eee 48,000 Den hte eee aie fer oni are iene aie 20,000 ESCO ccs ke faiea eee 23,000 Be aay soberaisrs iokowshesstenstaioied veil ABO 4) GUSBU feck severe vexeichuste? tore rereentene 23,636 UeWedsceassuas pocoecossooc PUOOO. 1) Toc sepinateteyat esac ya sienna 73,424 KehPi sc atot dadedovcsooudeny AS OLG i) PBC Oe a cnch- roxctasaie ne torarctaraternele 5,000 eSB peg h O00 2050-45 ORO 107 Aker) SR OO Ei. case sins toreye selena 44,000 158 TOTAL PLANTS OF CALIFORNIA SALMON, LUCIDA EEE SS Or Saeare er eeec ge SW AL Me eva: wisi tats) ait seis ele: obs) Sretmiatanare 73,000 BEN ee ream tate hs eicicig cise feta/e's ALO DOU MOTO cael «seid srchalss a: Wenale slalom 215,246 ISB co dy Hoe der sHaeInOOnaar es QUO | MESOO(AMUNGS) oe .tclcie)s crelel-ielelsre 575 ALES Ea eR a Se 227,000 —_——- SE tale ie tan, aaieaent visleihat ie nt sicokctrwe ad ac veasielaslae 1,304,651 IS Carey Pure PATO OD) ol) MCSA Ne doh. ou ooood co uno « 236,000 Welle Opdea due mone Gor Bineeee ORO ME MBLCUO eres Letatae) clersleteiene) tetoasiers 325,000 De rte rs eles Soisintan Sau eee GUM) | Tle eos Gono dtonoocouGons 273,000 MISE fey cites sate ter dte aiBiajeie) aiesas are 390,000 Saas BUR ch lh aire ate paeene topetot stelle atey se] ota ciuais stacey wala: @ssyeleis'. dj =)ecuiel os ave 2,211,000 TOTAL PLANTS OF BLACK BASS. BSS) eyetseereperehst tee ares saci ceeiey els te BeDOO! eV RSS src aocpetacsis sielejarsiaters ele sie 1,560 Ly Ace eds wie ene rs emehe aie MOOO! | PIBQOR LS oc ialdaus teickeseerc acne 185 ROtalt re ctditeevcisers Taeeiswiere s) wlerelelere we leinfentecolare slave tyes) saree 12,245 LEH oeb coongonacoapeaacsocs mpawibdgndgooonDO CuoboroocmDor 2,500,000 The aforesaid biennial reports contain detail statements of the place of each plant, date of delivery and to whom, and amount of each. From the annexed table it will appear that the total plants of whitefish aggregate the large number of nearly seven hundred and fifty million, commencing in 1874 with little abovea million anda half. The twenty million point was not reached until 1883, the fifty million point until 1886, nor the hundred million point until 1890, so that more than half the whole number have been planted within the past five years. It is matter of deep regret to every one connected with or interested in the artificial propagation of whitefish that actual and tangible demonstration of the results of such large plants, cannot in the nature of things be obtained. The results of brook trout planting in streams are so open to inspection and so easily observed and appreciated that 154 it is not difficult to convince any caviller by proofs and demonstration that cannot be gainsaid; but to reason from analogy it would seem that if the relatively smaller out- put of brook trout has produced such remarkable-results as they are known and acknowledged to have, the millions of whitefish and wall-eyed pike that have been planted in the Great Lakes must have made a marked impression on the commercial fisheries, and yet frankness compels the ad- mission that thus far the increased catch of adult white- fish is not at all commensurate with what it seems ought to have been expected as the outcome of these great plants. It is true there are many things to be taken into account in this matter, not the least of which is the slaughter of immature fish; but it would be very gratifying if the ac- tual outcome of these plants could be proved as it can with the plants in the streams. A SUGGESTION: THE ‘SPECIALIST IN 'FISHCULTOURE: BY W. DAVID TOMLIN. In all lines of business, the specialist has become a factor. In engineering circles the specialist is called in to examine the plant before it is started, even though a consulting engineer has supervised the construction all through. In electric engineering, after the contract is completed, a specialist carefully examines the entire system; not alone to test the efficiency, but to look for the most economic methods of operating the system. Specialists are not confined entirely to the medical pro- fession. The demands of American business life call for the most improved systems that can be devised to furnish 155 our people with food and comfort; with the best of raiment, with homes adorned with all that is beautiful, and replete with such surroundings that will conduce to the lengthen- ing of our days, and to take off the sharp edge of erroding care that so stealthily eats into the life of even the strong man. Among the tasty tid-bits that so many enjoy is the planked whitefish—the Coregoni of Lake Superior—be- coming year by year a scarcity. The States west of Lake Superior—Minnesota, the Dako- tas, Montana, Colorado and Jowa—demand. whitefish early in the season, and continue the demand as long as there are possibilities of getting them. In all these West- ern States they are staple articles of fish food when they can be procured; but the decrease is rapid, and unless some means are devised to restock the waters that formerly produced them, the fishermen will not find a school of such fish in a single season’s catch. At present we are dependent upon Canadian fishermen to largely supply our Western markets. We are brought to face the subject, American fishermen cannot get white- fish within one hundred miles of their home ports, and year by year the nets and boats have to go further up in- to Lake Superior to find any whitefish for the home mar- ket, let alone the demand for the same fish for the market in the States west of us. Mr. Milner sounded the notes of warning: ‘‘ That the whitefish were decreasing in 1872.’’ At that time the fishermen could get nets fairly well filled with them in Lake Superior waters within 12 to 20 miles of Duluth; to- day the fishermen must go 160 miles up into the same lake to get any of these fish, and if the ice is late in breaking up and going out, the fish have visited the grounds and de- parted before the fishermen get to the fishing grounds. These fish visit Isle Royale late in the fall to spawn, and 156 the only large catch of whitefish must be made at that time, or the fishermen get none during the season. The question arises and is often discussed with some vigor, is there no remedy for this state of affairs? Can- not Lake Superior be restocked with whitefish ? There are two points worthy of consideration. One isa national law demanding that the fishermen shall be com- pelled to strip and deposit the spawn of the whitefish, just as the State laws of the State of Wisconsin demands and enforces. Another point is, the employment of specialists that shall go out with the fishermen during the spawning season and teach them to carefully handle the fish and impreg- nate the eggs, and then interest the fishermen in the work so as to deposit the eggs in the best places to secure food for them when hatched. Fishermen are often charged with carelessness, destroy- ing young fish, by using meshes too small to let the smaller fry escape. I have not so found them, from some years’ experience with them. I have learned that measures looking to the introduction of larger mesh nets have been considered, and a bill was introduced into the State Legis- lature demanding the increase of the size of meshes full % of an inch string measure; in matters pertaining to the development of fishing interest these men are alive, and look to their own interests. This measure of securing an expert or a ‘‘specialist’’ to spend one or two seasons with the fishermen on the Great Lakes during the time the fish are spawning, and to get them interested in the best manner of propagating fish fry, came from men who have been obliged to go out of the fish business, because there is no money in the business; their capital stock lay too long idle and no means of re- muneration offered them—‘‘They must make hay while the sun shines’’—and the whitefish fishing became so poor they perforce sought other occupations. 157 Perhaps I am asked, Have any of the fishermen ever at- tempted to spawn fish, and if so, what were the results ? Yes, more than half a dozen of them; for results I will give a report to a gentleman connected with the Fish Com- mission: ‘*One of our men who lives up the lake quite a long ways, always spawns all the fish he finds that are in a fitting condition to be stripped, and has done so for five years; the result is he sends fish uniform in size, and more in quantity, and perhaps has not to go so far to catch fish as any other men who send _fish to us. The lake within a few miles of his home is a splendid fishing ground. While other grounds have been fished out, this man is pros- perous, intelligent, and is making money right along. Now, if he can do this with lake trout, why cannot other fishermen be taught to strip and spawn whitefish ? ”’ This is not an isolated case; at Fishermen’s Home on Isle Royale there is another fisherman who has been stripping fish as they came in ripe, and depositing the im- pregnated spawn. The captain of one of the fishing tugs has attempted the stripping of ripe fish and carried a tin bucket for this purpose; these three of the half dozen have perhaps been the only ones who have kept up the practice, but the mass of the fishermen have at different times urged the necessity of planting the spawn on the grounds where nature has provided food for the young fry when hatched. . Does some one ask, Is there a necessity for incurring this expense? Does not the increasing demand for this foremost of all fishes for table use justify the demand for some extra expense? Does not the decreasing numbers of these fish call for some extra efforts to replenish the waters formerly prolific with them ? Does not the fact that tugs come into port the first week in June, and report the fishing “‘ played out”? demand that 158 something be done to provide for the restocking of the whitefish grounds ?”’ Is it not sufficient to convince any thinking mind, that six years ago, four steam vessels hailed from this port [Duluth], and scoured the fishing grounds of Lake Superior for lake trout and whitefish; while at the present date there is but one steam tug engaged in the fishing business, and before the middle of June, this is coming in with but half catches, and announces that the fishing is about gone up for this season. It is useless to send out men to gather spawn, who can- not resist the impulse to sit down vigorously when a boat is rolling. It is more than useless to send out men to gather spawn, who will made a fire on the beach, and sit and warm themselves, while the fishermen are either coaxed or bluffed into getting spawn for them. If fisher- men can be taught to gather spawn, then by all means let the experiment be tried. It is better to let fishermen at- tempt to gather spawn, and realize 40 per cent. for the quantity gathered, than to have men sent out for this specific purpose, go to sleep in the pilot house of the tugs ; while the fishermen dump such eggs that are taken into a bucket, nilly willy, leaving the eggs to the chances of impregnation. Fishermen have made successful spawn takers, have raised 80 per cent. of the spawn so taken, and brought out strong, healthy fry; what one fisherman has done, others can be taught to do. Then by a careful selection of sober, industrious men, ‘ apt to learn, quick-witted, of habits of thought capable of improving their surroundings, with fingers that follow the impulses of their minds, and who by their earlier experi- ences can stay ina rolling boat and secure eggs, without paying tribute to the genii of the unsalted seas by casting up their last meal. The situation demands some thought of fishculturists. 159 Should we stand with folded hands, and see this denizen of these great lakes pass into the records of the U. 8. Fish Commission, while the coming generation shall say, That was an age that consumed, but did not produce. SALE OF DOMESTICATED’ FISH. BY We) He PAG. If the subject on which I now address you needs apology it may be found in the first Article of the Constitution of this Society. Therein it is stated among other things that the object of this Society is ‘‘ to promote the cause of fish- culture, and the uniting and encouraging of the interests of fishculture.”’ During the past three years, my attention has been several times called, more forcibly than ever before, to the harassing restrictions placed by several of the States upon fishculture when conducted as a private enterprise. I have reference to the clause existing in the laws of several States prohibiting the sale of artificially reared fish within the close season prescribed for the protection of wild fish. In the framing of many of the protection laws of the States it would seem that folly had joined hands with wisdom. For these protective laws were in themselves the direct outgrowth of the repeated earnest recommendation and solicitation of fishculturists. It cannot be believed that it was any part of the intention of the solicitors that laws should be enacted or so constructed as to harass, hamper and strangle fishculture. It is unreasonable that any State fostering fishculture at State expense in main- taining hatcheries under the plea of furnishing its citizens 160 with cheap and healthful food, should in substance say to a tax-paying citizen, ‘‘ You must not sell your artificially reared fish to our people until such time as Dame Nature can furnish us the same article.’”’ By its creation and maintenance of a Fish Commission, empowered to restock the streams, the State recognizes the desirability that its people should have an abundant, cheap food ; and by its imposition of a tax on private fishcultural establishments it says, in effect, that the business is legitimate ; but all this is unsaid when it denies to the taxed industry the right to sell its products in accordance with the demands of the market. Itis worse than taxation without representation, itis taxation with strangulation. The error consisted at the time of framing the laws in not recognizing the vast possibilities of fishculture for supplying the market de- mand, in not distinguishing between wild trout and those artiticially raised. Some of the States promptly modified their laws. But it is amazing that others persist in refus- ing to distinguish between State property and private property. If the expansion of fishculture so earnestly wished and worked for is ever to be realized in America, this stumbling block of over-protection must first be re- moved. Asastep toward the consummation of this end I offer for your consideration the following : At a meeting of the American Fisheries Society, held in Chicago, May 15, 1893, the following preamble and re- solutions were presented : Whereas, The cultivation and raising of trout as a food product being now an established industry in many of the States, furnishing employment to individuals, profitable investment for capital, and food for the people, and where- as the business is capable of great expansion, thereby furnishing the people with a food product of the highest class, and whereas the object of this Society is to encour- age the cultivation of useful fishes as a food product, and 161 whereas this Society views with regret the laws of several States which interfere with the above industry ; Resolved, That this Society favors legislation which will permit the sale and possession for food of trout and other useful fishes, which are artificially raised in private ponds and streams, at any time when within the provisions of the health ordinances. WHAT WE KNOW OF THE LOBSTER. BY FRED MATHER. Within a few years much has been learned of the life- history of our common lobster that we did not know before. We knew that the female carried the eggs after extrusion, attached in masses to the so-called swimerets under the abdomen, which is improperly called the “ tail,”’ and that they hatched there. In Bell’s ‘‘ British Crustacea” it is said that the mother cares for the young after hatching and can recall them for protection. My own observations are that the young scatter and find protection in the rocks. I am satisfied that the lobster carries her eggs all winter, and that all those laid after the middle of July, in Long Island Sound, will not hatch the same year, but eggs taken late last year afford a chance to give some figures which may be of value. On August 11, 1892, we took from 12 lobsters 48 fluid ounces of eggs, which by actual count measured 6,000 tothe ounce, and on August 16 took from 33 lobsters 94 ounces, making in all 822,000 egg or 18,266 per lobster. Wecould not keep these eggs all winter, and they showed only slight developement a month later. No work that has occupied the attention of fishculturists compares with what may be done in replacing the lobster -162 industry on the footing which it held in comparison to the population of the country 40 years ago. Then, a lobster of five pounds was a small one, now, one half of that weight is large, and the numbers have decreased in even greater proportion. The only things that approach the utility of lobster culture in economic importance is the hatching of whitefish on the Great Lakes, and the shad in therivers ; the trout and salmon will not compare with the lobster in value, if the latter can be increased as the former have been. It is possible to bring this neglected branch of fisheulture to a point where it will, on the seaboard, at least, over- shadow the other branches in which we have been engaged. After making notes about lobsters carrying their eggs all winter, when laid after July 15, I received the follow- ing letter from Prof. Samuel Garman, of the Museum of Comparative Zodlogy, Cambridge, Mass., dated August 30, 1892: Mr. FRED MATHER: Dear Sir: Iam very glad to get your reports and to know that you are pushing inquiries into the life-history of the lobster and the fishes which you propagate. I take pleas- ure in sending you a little report of my own on the lobster. Very truly, S. GARMAN. To say just how I rejoiced to find that Professor Gar- man’s studies confirmed my own crude observations is beyond my power. It is pleasant to have one’s ideas confirmed by any one who has studied the subject more than he has ; but I will quote Prof. Garman’s paper entire: REPORT ON THE LOBSTER. By S. GARMAN, MusrEuM oF CoMPARATIVE ZOOLOoeyY, CAMBRIGDE, Mass., Dec. 17, 1891. Hon. E. A. Brackett, Massachusetts State Fishery Commissioner: Sir :—Yours, with inquiries regarding the conclusions reached in the study 163 of the lobster, is at hand. While unavoidable delay in the drawings prevents placing the complete matter in your hands, it is quite possible to give you in a few words a general idea of the results and their bearings, such as will no doubt sufliciently answer your questions, According to the arrangements made, some of the eggs from berried lobsters kept for the purpose were sent me at regular intervals through an entire year. These eggs were at once examined to note their progress in development, and they were then preserved by various methods for future studies and compari- sons. After their young were hatched the females themselves were dissected, to observe the condition of the ovaries, and to determine the time when another lot of eggs. might have been expected from them. As our work began in midwinter, it was necessary to follow certain specimens up to the hatching, and then to take others to complete the series from the laying. Eggs supplied ~ me as freshly laid were so far advanced as to indicate that fertilization had taken place before they were placed under the tail of the lobster bearing them. The time and process of fertilization has not been discovered ; but in all likeli- hood the marine lobster does not differ greatly in these respects from its fresh- water relatives, the crayfishes. In the case of the latter the male seeks the female some time before the eggs are laid, and deposits the fertilizing matter on the upper side of the body, near the external openings of the oviducts, where it adheres for a time as a whitish mass. How the fertilizing elements, the spermatozoa, come into contact with the eggs and enter them, has not yet been observed. The development of the embryo in eggs laid on the seventh or eighth of August was so rapid that on the third of September the eyes were visible as thin crescent-shaped spots. As the waters grew colder the progress was retarded, until the changes were very slight indeed. This condition was maintained throughout the winter, and it was only when the summer tempera- ture was reached that rapidity of advancement was again to be noted. The young began to hatch on the fourteenth of July ; all of the eggs on a female seeming to be about equally advanced, the entire brood emerged at very nearly the same time. Examination of the ovaries, after their young had left, showed that the females would not have laid eggs again for a year ; that is, not before the summer next following that in which they had hatched a brood. In other words, the dissections proved that the lobster lays only once in two years, hatching a brood one summer and laying eggs the next following summer for another brood. The time required in the development of the embryo is so long as to preclude hatching the eggs under ordinary circumstances during the summer in which they are laid. Artificial conditions might readily be brought about, by heating the water in which the specimens are kept, which would hasten the progress and greatly shorten the period between laying and hatching ; but normally the winter temperature induces an almost complete suspension of advancement. By the small number of specimens kept, it was not possible to fix the lengths of either the laying or the hatching periods. This, however, may be approxi- mately done in connection with observations made by the United States Fish 164 Commission. It must be borne in mind, in this connection, that the seasons south of Cape Cod begin earlier and last longer than in Massachusetts Bay, and that further north they will be still more contracted. Variation must also be expected in different years, as the seasons are earlier or later, and in different localities, as the waters are warmer or colder. Though the bulk of the laying or of the hatcaing in any particular year occurs within periods of two or three weeks, probably four-fifths of either is finished in less than a fortnight; to make allowance for the early years and for the late ones, and to include the early and the belated individuals, it becomes necessary to considerably extend the general periods. From all that has been gathered we may summarize as follows: (1) The female lobster lays eggs but once in two years, the layings being two years apart ; (2) the normal time of laying is when the water has reached its summer temperature, varying in different seasons and places, the period extending from about the middle of June till about the first of September ; and (3) the eggs do not hatch before the summer following that in which they were laid, the time of hatching varying with the temperature, and the period extending from about the middle of May till about the first of August. I have the honor to be, very respectfully yours, S. GARMAN. This represents all that is known of the life-history of the lobster to-day. Our plants from the eggs taken July 8, 1892, were made on July 12, 18 and 20, and was proba- bly the last of the eggs laid the summer before. I do not believe that ‘‘ the lobster lays eggs all the year round,”’ as has been said. The animal leaves the ‘‘crawls’’ in cold weather and seeks a depth where the temperature is higher, and the lobstermen shift their pots in accordance with this migration. In a two-column article the Scientific American of April 9, 1892, went over this subject, and from that I make the following extracts : During the past ten years there has been a great falling off in the supply of lobsters, until the price has increased fully one hundred per cent. This ap- plies alike to the New York market, to the waters along the New England coast and in Canada and Newfoundland, where lobster fishing and canning is an important industry. The necessity for increasing the supply of lobsters is generally recognized, and two methods are proposed for accomplishing this object. One is the enactment of laws which will check the depletion of the lobster beds by over-fishing and the otheris artificial propagation. Marshall McDonald, who is at the head of the United States Fish Commis- 165 sion, Says: ‘‘I have always felt that the maintenance of the lobster fishery rested more essentially upon proper regulation of the matter by the States than upon any efforts in the way of artificial propagation. The most usual regula- tion is that prohibiting the sale of lobsters below certain dimensions ; the min- inum limit, though varying with the different States, being smallest in Massachusetts. In Maine, where the law is enforced and the minimum fixed, I believe, at ten inches, the result has been a marked improvement in the lobster fisheries during recent years.” A law was enacted by the New York Legislature in 1880, prohibiting the taking of lobsters smaller than ten and a half inches, but it was repealed, largely it is said, by reason of the efforts of a hotel keeper in New York city with political influence, who was determined to serve small lobsters on his table, regardless of the effect of rescinding the regulations. The difficulty of securing legislation on this subject of enforcing the laws when they are enacted, and preventing their repeal through the efforts of persons who have no regard whatever for the consequences of their acts, com- pels those who desire to see the supply of this wholesome food fish kept up, to look to artificial propagation as the most available method for securing the object desired. For three seasons lobsters have been hatched in small numbers at the station of the New York Commission, Cold Spring Harbor, L. I. The embryos are very delicate, and when lobsters are placed on ice, as many are which come to market, the embryo is generally ruined for hatching purposes. Fred Mather, Superintendent of the Cold Spring hatchery, and a man of wide experience in fish propagation, said recently that lobsters were not only decreasing in numbers, but also in size. A two-pound lobster was now con- sidered a fair average. New York is next to the largest receiving market for lobsters in the country, yet the lobster fisheries within the boundaries of the State are not now import- ant, and are confined to eastern Long Island. In former years lobsters were found in large numbers in New York Bay and at Hell Gate. The disappear- ance of this food fish is due mainly to over-fishing, but also to the establish- ment of manufactories, which have polluted the waters. Lobsters were taken at Robbin’s Reef, New York Bay, as late as 1879, but they were small and were not exposed for sale. Lobsters are sold in New York during the entire year, but the demand is five times greater during July, August and September than during any other three months of the year. The demand is the least during February and March. The consumption of lobsters at Coney Island in summer reaches 3,500 pounds a day. The experience on the coast of Maine seems to be similar to that already stated. In 1890 twenty millions of lobsters were taken, which was a falling off of five millions or twenty per cent. from the catch of 1888 and ten per cent. from 1889. There has also been a steady decrease in the size of the fish sent to market. During 1889 and 1890 the average length of lobsters offered for 166 sale was 104 inches, and the average weight two pounds. Ten years ago the average length was 13 inches and the weight three and one-half to four pounds. There are thirty-six factories on the coast of Maine where lobsters, sardines, herrings and mackerels are packed. When it is remembered that the eggs which we get would be sent to market, boiled with the lobsters and thrown away with the shells, it will be seen what may be done in lobster culture with proper facilities. The lobster is easier to catch than a rabbit, for it has less sense, and when it sees a lobster pot with its bait, it seems to have found a haven of rest—and it has. The decrease of the number of lobsters from Newfound- land to New Jersey, has been accompanied by a decrease in size, and a corresponding increase in price per pound. In proof of this I will again quote from the Scientific AMeTICAN : The depletion of the lobster fisheries has been especially noticeable in Can- ada. The report of 1888 showed a decrease in the value of exports of $350,- 000, as compared with the previous year, although there had been an advance in the price of 25 per cent. The value of the Canadian lobster fishery in 1888 was $1,483,388 ; in 1886, $2,638,394 ; in 1885, $2,613,731. Could figures speak plainer than these ? Up to June 11, this year, we have planted 85,350 young lobsters, and have on hand 510,000 eggs.* We cannot keep the young many days, because they are cannibals, and as they moult about three times in the first ten days and are then soft, their brethren devour them. I have fed them crab and lobster meat, clams and beef, with the hope of bribing them to refrain from eating their fellows, but did not succeed. They are persistent cannibals and must be put out at a few days old on rocky bottom, where there are always hiding places for a soft lobster to remain until his skin hardens into a new and larger shell. *The plant for the year 1893, was 176,945. Most of the late eggs did not hatch.—F. M. 167 CONSTITUTION. ARTICLE I. NAME AND OpsEcts.—The name of this Society shall be ‘¢The American Fisheries Society.’’ Its object shall be to promote the cause of fishculture ; to gather and diffuse in- formation bearing upon its practical success, and upon all matters relating to the fisheries ; the uniting and encour- aging of the interests of fishculture and the fisheries ; and the treatment of all questions regarding fish of a scientific and economic character. ARTICLE II. MermBers.—Any person shall, upon a two-thirds vote and the payment of three dollars, become a member of this Society. In case members do not pay, their fees—which shall be three dollars per year—after the first year, and are delinquent for two years, they shall be notified by the Treasurer, and if the amount due is not paid within a month thereafter, they shall be, without further notice, dropped from the roll of membership. Any person can be made an honorary or a corresponding member upon a two-thirds vote the of members present, at any regular meeting. ARTICLE III. OrricERS.—The officers of this Society shall be a Presi- dent and a Vice-President, who shall be ineligible for 168 election to the same office until a year after the expiration of their terms; a Corresponding Secretary, a Recording Secretary, a Treasurer, and an Executive Committee of seven, which with the officers before named, shall form a council and transact such business as may be necessary when the Society is not in session—four to constitute a quorum. ARTICLE IV. Merertines.—The regular meeting of the Society shall be held once a year, the time and place being decided upon at the previous meeting, or in default of such action, by the Executive Committee. ARTICLE V. ‘CHANGING THE ConstiItuTION.—The Constitution of the Society may be amended, altered, or repealed, by a two- thirds vote of the members present at any regular meeting, provided at least fifteen members are present at said meeting. 169 MEMBERS OF THE PME RKICAN FISHERIES SOCIETY: Honorary Members. Behr, E. von Schmoldow, Germany; President of the Deutschen Fischerei verein, Berlin, Germany. Borodine, Nicholas, Delegate of the Russian Association of Pisciculture and Fisheries, St. Petersburg, Russia. Borne, Max von dem, Berneuchen, Germany. Huxley Prof. Thomas H., London ; President of the Royal Society. Jones, John D., 51 Wall Street, New York. St. Clair Flats Shooting and Fishing Club, Detroit, Mich. Anglers’ Association of Eastern Pennsylvania. Corresponding Members. Apostolides, Prof. Nicoly Chr., Athens, Greece. Buch, Dr. 8. A., Christina, Norway ; Government Inspec- tor of Fisheries. j Birkbeck, Edward, Esq., M. P., London, England. Benecke, Prof. B., Conigsberg, Germany ; Commissioner of Fisheries. 170 . Brady, Thomas F., Esq., Dublin Castle, Dublin, Bh Inspector of Mipieitersice for Ireland. Chambers, Oldham W., Esq., Secretary of the National Fishculture Association, South Kensington, London. Day, Dr. Francis F. L. 8., Kenilworth House, Cheltenham, England, late Inspector-General of Fisheries for India. Fedderson, Arthur, Viborg, Denmark. Giglioli, Prof. H. H., Florence, Italy. Hubrecht, Prof. A. A. W., Utrecht, Holland: Member of the Dutch Fisheries Commission, and Director of the Netherlands Zoological Station. Ito, K. Esq., Hokkaido, Cho., Sapporo, Japan; Member of the Fisheries Department of Hokkaido, and Presi- dent of the Fisheries Society of Northern Japan. Juel, Capt. N., R. N., Bergen, Norway; President of the Society for the Development of Norwegian Fisheries. Landmark, 8., Bergen, Norway ; Inspector of Norwegian Fresh Water Fisheries. Lundberg, Dr. Rudolph, Stockholm, Sweden; Inspector of Fisheries. Macleay, William, Syndey, N. 8. W.; President of the Fisheries Commission of New South Wales. Maitland, Sir J. Ramsay Gibson, Bart., Howietown, Stirling, Scotland. Malmgren, A. J., Prof., Helsingfors, Finland. Marston, R. B., Esq., of London, England; Editor of the Fishing Gazette. Olsen, O. T., Grimsby, England. Sars, Prof. G. O., Christina, Norway; Government In- spector of Fisheries. Smith, Prof. F. A., Stockholm, Sweden. Sola, Don Francisco, Garcia, Madrid, Spain ; Secretary of the Spanish Fisheries Society. 171 Solsky, Baron N. de, St. Petersburg, Russia; Director of the Imperial Agricultural Museum. Trybom, Filip, Dr., Stockholm, Sweden. Walpole, Hon. Spencer, Governor of the Isle of Man. Wattel, M. Raveret, Paris, France; Secretary of the So- cietie d’ Acclimation. Young, Archibald, Esq., Fdinburgh, Scotland; H. M. In- spector of Salmon Fisheries. New Members. Armstrong, C. E., Toledo, Ohio. Blair, Joseph H., Omaha, Nebraska. Davis, H. W. Detroit, Michigan. Dean, Dr. Bashford, Columbia College, N. Y. Jones, Alexander, Wood’s Holl, Mass. Ravenel, W. de C. Members. Adams, Edwin W., 14 Wall Street, New York. Adams, Dr. 8. C., earn: Hiss Agnew, John T., ‘284 Front Street, New York. Alexander, L. D., P. O. Box 897, New York. Amsden, F. J., Rochester, N. Y. Anderson, A. A., Bloomsbury, N. J. Anderson, J. F., Whitestone, Long Island, N. Y. Annin, James, Jr., Caledonia, N. Y. Atkins, Charles G., Buckport, Me. Atwater, Prof. W. O., Middleton, Conn. Ayers, F. W., Bangor, Me. Babcock, C. H., Rochester, N. Y. Balkam, William F., Rochester, N. Y. Banks, Robert Lenox, Albany, N. Y. Barnum, William, Rochester, N. Y. Barrett, Charles, Grafton, Vt. Bartlett, 8. P., Quincy, Il. 172 Bean, Dr. Tarleton H., National Museum, Washington. Belmont, Perry, 19 Nassau Street, New York. Benjamin, Pulaski, Fulton Market, New York. Benkard, James, Union Club, New York. Bickmore, Prof. A. 8., American Museum, New York. Bishop, M. D., Heber, 380 Newbury Street, Boston, Mass. Bissell, J. H., Detroit, Mich. Blackford, E. G., Fulton Market, New York. Booth, A., Chicago, Il. Bottemane, C. J., Bergen-on-Zoom, Holland. Bower, Seymour, Deerfield, Mich. Bowman, W. H., Rochester, N. Y. Bradley, Dr. E., 19 West 30th Street, New York. Brown, F. W., N. W. corner Broad and Cherry Streets. Brown, J. E., U. 8. Fish Commission, Washington, D. C. Brown, 8. C., National Museum, Washington, D. C. Brush, M. D., Edward F., Mount Vernon, N. Y. Bryan, Edward H., Smithsonian Institute. Bryson, Col. M. A., 903 Sixth Avenue, New York. Buell, H. 8., Fishing Editor, Times Union, Albany, N. Y. Burden, Henry, Troy, N. Y. Butler, W. A., Jr., Detroit, Mich. Butler, Frank A., 291 Broadway, New York, Butler, W. H., 291 Broadway, New York. Carey, Dr. H. H., Atlanta, Ga. Chamberlayne, Chas. F., Buzzards Bay, Mass. Cheney, A. Nelson, Glen Falls, N. Y. Clapp, A. T., Sunbury, Pa. Clark, Frank N., U. 8. Fish Commission, Northville, Mich. Clark, A. Howard, National Museum, Washington, D. C. Collins, J. Penrose, 850 Drexel Building, Philadelphia. Collins, Capt. J. W., U. 8S. Fish Commission, Washington. Comstock, Oscar, Fulton Market, New York. Conklin, William A., Central Park, New York. Cox, W. V., National Museum, Washington, D. C. Crook, Abel, 99 Nassau Street, New York. 173 Crosby, Henry F.. P. O. Box 3714, New York. Dewey, J. N., Toledo, Ohio. Dieckerman, Geo. H., New Hampton, N. H. Donaldson, Hon. Thomas, Philadelphia. Doyle, E. P., Secretary New York Fish Commission, New York. Dunning, Philo, Madison, Wis. Earll, R. E., National Museum, Washington, D. C. Ellis, J. F., U. S. Fish Commission, Washington, D. C. Endicott, Francis, Tompkinsville, N. Y. Evarts, Charles B., Windsor, Vt. Fairbank, N. K., Chicago, I. Ferguson, T. B., Washington, D. C. Fitzhugh, Daniel H., Bay City, Mich. Foulds, M. D., T. H., Glen Falls, N. Y. Foord, Jobn, Brooklyn, N. Y., Editor Harper’ s Weekly. Ford, Henry C., Philadelphia, Pa. French, Asa B., South Braintree, Mass. Frishmuth, E. H., Jr., 151 N. Third Street, Philadelphia. Garitt, W. S., Lyons, N. Y. Garman, 8., Museum of Comparative Zodlogy, Cambridge, Mass. Garrett, W. E., P. O. Box 3006, New York. Gay, John, U. 8. Fish Commission, Washington, D. C. Gilbert, W. L., Plymouth, Mass. Goode, G. Brown, National Museum, Washington, D. C. Greuseback, Jas. A., New Rochelle, N. Y. Gunckel, J. E., Toledo, Ohio. Hackney, David D., Fort Plain, N. Y. Hagert, Edwin, 32 N. Sixth Street, Philadelphia. Haley, Albert, Fulton Market, New York. Haley, Caleb, Fulton Market, New York. Hall, A. G., Reeds Creek, Delaware Co., N. Y. Hamilton, Robert, Greenwich, N. Y. Harper, Thos. B., 709 Market Street, Philadelphia. Harris, Gwynn, Washington, D. C. 174 Harris, W. C., Editor American Angler, 10 Warren Street, New York. Hartley, R. M., 627 Walnut Street, Philadelphia. Hasbrouck, C. T., Cleveland, Ohio. Hayes, A. A., Washington, D. C. Hayes, W. H., Ottowa, Canada. Henshall, Dr. J. A., 362 Court Street, Cincinnati, Ohio. Hergesheimer, Wm. 8., 1119 N. Eight Street, Philadelphia. Hessel, Dr. Rudolph, U. 8. Fish Commission, Washington. Hicks, John D., Roslyn, Long Island, N. Y. Hill. M.D., Clayton, NX. Hinchman, C. C., Detroit, Mich. Hofer, J. C., Bellaire, Ohio. Hoxie, John W., Carolina, R. I. Hudson, Dr. Wm. M., Hartford, Conn. Hughes, T. W. B., 258 Broadway, New York. Humphries, Dr. E. W., Salisbury, Md. Huntington, L. D., New Rochelle, N. Y. Huntington, W. R., Cleveland, Ohio. Hutchinson, Chas., Utica, N. Y. Hutchinson, E. 8., Washington, D. C. Isaacs, Montefiore, 42 Broad Street, New York. Imbrie, Charles F., New York. James, Dr. Bushrod W., N. E. corner Eighteenth and Green Streets, Philadelphia. Jessup, F. J., 88 Cortlandt Street, New York. Johnston, 8. M., Battery Wharf, Boston, Mass. Jones, R.W., President Mentfrede Fishing Club, Syracuse, New York. Jones, R.W., President Carpenter Brook Fishing Associa- tion, Syracuse, N. Y. Kauffman, 8. H., Hvening Star Office, Washington, D. C. Kellogg, A. J., Detroit, Mich. Kelly, P., 346 Sixth Avenue, New York. Kimball, W. J., Rochester, N. Y. Kingsbury, Dr. C. A., 1119 Walnut St., Philadelphia, Pa. 175 Klock, George S., Rome, N. Y. Krumbholtz, T. Edmund, Wawbeck, N. Y. Lamtson, Giles H., U. 8. Fish Commission, Washington. Lawrence, G. N., 45 E. Twenty-first Street, New York. Lawrence, F. C., Union Club, New York. Leavenworth, E. W., Wilkesbarre, Penn. Lee, Thomas, U. 8. Fish Commission. Little, Amos R., Philadelphia. Loring, John A., 3 Pemberton Square (Room 8), Boston, Mass. Lowrey, J. A., Union Club, New York. Lydecker, Major G. I., U. S. Engineers. Lynch, Peter W., New York. Mallory, Charles, foot Burling Slip, New York. Mansfield, Lieut. H. B., U. S. Navy, Washington, D. C. Marks, Walter D., Paris, Mich. Mather, Fred., Cold Spring Harbor, Suffolk Co., N. Y. May, W. L., Fremont, Neb. McDonald, Col. L., Fish Commissioner of the United States, Washington, D. C. McGown, Hon. H. P., 76 Nassau Street, New York. Mackay, Robert M., 1517 N.'Thirteenth Street, Philadelphia. Merrill, Ph. D., Frederick J. H., State Museum, Albany, New York. Middleton, W., Fulton Market, New York. Milbank, S. W., Union Club, New York. Miles, Jacob F., 1820 Arch Street, Philadelphia. Miller, S. B., Fulton Market, New York. Miller, Ernest, Fulton Market, New York. Miller, Joseph O., Mount Kisco, N. Y. Miller, A. H., 1020 Spring Garden Street, Philadelphia, Pa. Mills, George T., Carson City, Nevada. Miner, C. Harry, New York. Mitchell, Archibald, Norwich Conn. Moon, George T., New York. Moore, Geo. H. H., U. 8S. Fish Commission. 176 Morrell, Daniel, Hartford, Conn. Nevin, James, Madison, Wis. O’Brien, Martin E., South Bend, Neb. O’Connor, J. J., U. 8S. Fish Commission, Washington, D. C. Offensend, John H., Fair Haven, Vt. Osborn, Hon. C. V., Dayton, Ohio. Orvis, Charles F., Manchester, Vt. Page, W. F., U. S. Fish Commission, Washington, D. C. Parker, Dr. J. C., Grand Rapids, Mich. Parker, Peter, Jr., U. S. Fish Commission. Pease, Charles, East Rockport, Cuyahoga Co., Ohio. Pike. Hon. R. G., Middleton, Conn. Porter, B. P., San Francisco. Post, Hoyt, Detroit, Mich. Post, W., Knickerbocker Club, New York. Potter, Emory D., Sandusky, Ohio. Powell, W. L., Harrisburg, Pa. Benen 5 Iie 28 sisi See NV, Puston, Dr. Henry G., 98 Lafayette Ave., Brooklyn. Quabkenibos, Prof. J ohn D., 33 West Twenty- eighth Street, New York. Rathburn, Richard, U. 8. Fish Commission, Washington. Ray, Hon. Ossian, M. C., New Hampshire. Redmond, R., 113 Franklin Street, New York. Reinecke, Theodore, Box 1651, New York. Reynal, J., 84 White Street, New York. Reynolds, Charles B., 318 Broadway, New York. Ricardo, George, Hackensack, N. J. Robeson, Hon. George M., Camden, N. J. Rogers, W. H., Amherst, N. 8. Sarnaca Lake Hotel Co., Patton & Young, Ampersand, Franklin Co., N. Y. Schaffer, George H., Foot Perry Street, New York. Schieffelin, W. H., 170 William Street, New York. schuyler, HH. P., Troy, IN: Y. Seal, William P., Washington, D. C. 177 Sherman, Gen. R. U., New Hartford, Oneida Co., N. Y. Sherwin, H. A., Cleveland, Ohio. Simmons, Newton, U. 8. Fish Commission, Washington. Smiley, C. W. Smithsonian Institute, Washington, D. C. Smith, Hugh M., Washington, D. C. Spangler, A. M., 529 Commerce Street, Philadelphia. Spensley, Calvert, Mineral Point, Wis. Spofford, Henry W., Smithsonian Institute. Stelwagon, Weightman, 702 Provident Building, Philadel- phia. Steers, Henry, 10 E. 38th Street, New York. Stone, Livingston, Charlestown, N. H., U. 8. Fish Com- mission. Stone, Summer R., 58 Pine Street, New York. Stranahan, J. J., Chagrin Falls, Ohio. Swan, B. L., Jr., 5 West 20th Street, New York. Sweeney, Dr. R. O., Duluth, Minn. Streuber, Louis Erie, Pa. Taylor, Alex. Jr., Mamaroneck, N. Y. Thompson, H. H., Bedford Bank, Brooklyn, N. Y. Titcomb, John W., Rutland, Vt. Tomlin, David W., Duluth, Minn. Underhill, John Q., New Rochelle, N. Y. Upston, Geo. W., Warren, Ohio. Van Cleef, J. S., Poughkeepsie, N. Y. Van Valkenburgh, B. F,. 288 Greenwich Street, New York. Walton, Collins W., 1713 Spring Garden Street, Phila- delphia. Ward, George E., 43 South Street, New York. Ward, M. D., Samuel R., Pres’t Eastern New York Fish and Game Association. Warren, C. C., Waterbury, Vt. Webb, W. Seward, 44th Street and Vanderbilt Ave., New York. Weeks, Seth, Corrie, Erie Co., Pa. Welshons, G. H., Pzttsburg Times’ Office, Pittsburg, Penn. 178 West, Benjamin, Fulton Market, New York. Whitaker, Herschel, Detroit, Mich. Whitaker, E. G., New York City. Wilbur, E. R., Forest and Stream, New York City. Wilbur, H. O., Third St., below Race, Philadelphia. Willetts, J. C., Skaneatles, N. Y. Witherbee, W. C., Port Henry, Essex Co., N. Y. Yalden, James, 11 Pine Street, New York. Zweighalt, 8. 1823 Franklin Street, Philadelphia. = “BS. National Museum > 4 (ehh Mh hehehe bihih¢i¢tidihilikihiké American Fisheri Societ y sneries Sociecry. ‘ f Sead ‘ ‘ epsenien iv Stitutis Ke e a \ re rod ¢ f \ JUN 25 1920 Ve ti On GUM Mh hhh hihi hsibbttttttttita —— oie : Divislon of Fishes, TRANSACTIONS ORE AMERICA N——-un, FISHERIES SOCIETY. TWENTY-THIRD ANNUAL MEETING. o> +> HIELD IN). «. PHILADELPHIA, Wednesday, May 16th and Thursday, May 17th, 1894. NEW YORK: THOS. HUMPHREY, Printer; 359 Canal St. 1894. Officers for I8g4-"9¢. PReesipen st.) WW. MEAN oe ek 0 eos eee ee Nebraska Vick-PRESEIDENT, RR: .OSSWEEHN Yous lone oaser eee Minnesota LRBASURER, PRANE. |) ae MISUEN yf ce. .ctk sce New York RECORDING SECRETARY, EDWARD P. DOYLE... Mew York. Cor. SECRETARY, Dr. JAMES A. HENSHALL...........Ohzo. Executive Committee. 12 Ee 1 LY CY) CJR a me A ene a ce Georgia. Tem NOLIN GOIN, ¢ Dos taut o owhetoe oan on eee New York. PIPMRW es BORD: o). 00.5001. .20 22 \h ee 2 a ee Cada eS HINSLEY 22.0000 tes cee mes Se eee Wisconsin. CHAKUEHS L. CHAMBERLAYNE,. 1.27.4. 4. Massachusetts. EO OSs ohne 8 ake Nohecieie%e wanes f ctee end aan eee Michigan. ee MINUTES —OR Dak » TWENTY-THIRD ANNUAL MEETING Or tH AMERICAN FISHERIES SOCIETY, HELD IN PHILADELPHLA; WEDNESDAY, MAY 16TH AND THURSDAY, MAY 17TH, 1894. The meeting was called to order at ten o'clock A. M. by the President, Henry C. Ford of Pennsylvania. The following members were present : vi opancler, FH. “Bord, War) (Meehan, a) W. James, W. L. May, Wm. H. Bowman, Robert Hamilton, Fred. Mather, C. F. Chamberlayne, Herschel Whitaker, John'Gay, L. D. Huntington, Edward) Fi Mavic? Howard A, Chase, WH. MH: Cary, My De Fo Ww. Ebel, J. W. Collins, Marshal McDonald, F. H. Bean, Richard Rathburn, M. D. Cornwall, William L. Taylor, heb Wiis.) Andrews, J. S) Van Clear Th Van Cleat H. A. Wilbur, F. Ellis, B. L. Douredoure, A. H. Miller, W. L. Powell. On motion, the calling of the roll was postponed 4 until the afternoon. A telegram was received from R. O. Sweeny, Treasurer of the Society, announcing that it would be impossible for him to be present at the meeting and sending a statement of his account. On motion, John Gay of Pennsylvania was appointed Treasurer pro: tem. The minutes of the last meeting having been printed in the report as published, on motion, the reading of the minutes was dispensed with. The President appointed the following committee on nominations of officers for the ensuing year; W. L May of Nebraska, Herschel Whitaker of Michigan, H. H. Cary of Georgia, John Gay of Pennsylvania and William H. Bowman of New York. Dr. B. W. James of Pennsylvania, H. WH. Cangaiae Georgia and W. L. May of Nebraska, were appointed a committee to audit the accounts of the Treasurer. On motion, a Committee of three was appointed to determine the time and place of the next meeting. The President appointed as such Committee W. L. May of Nebraska, L. D, Huntington of New York and B. W. James of Pennsylvania. On motion, the following gentlemen being duly nom- inated and seconded, were unanimously elected members of the Society : Howard A. Chase of Philadelphia, William E, Meehan of Philadelphia and William T. Wardle of New York. The President, Mr. Ford, then addressed the Society at length upon its work. A paper was read by Fred. Mather on “Improved Methods of Hatching Smelt.” 5 A paper was read by Dr. B. W. James on “Alaskan and Behring Sea Fishing Interests.” A paper was read by Charles Hallock, entitled “When Shad were a penny a piece.” Mr. Doyle offered the following resolution : RESOLVED. That the President appoint a Com-— mittee of three on Increase of Membership, such Com- mittee to have full power to solicit eligible persons to join the Society ; subject, however, to the right of the Society to reject or elect such persons to membership. The motion was pending when the motion to adjourn was made and carried, and the convention adjourned to meet at two o'clock in the afternoon. MINUTES OF ADJOURNED MEETING HELD WEDNESDAY, AT TWO O'CLOCK IN THE AFTERNOON. The pending question, being the resolution providing for a Committee of three on Increase of Membership, was put and carried. The President appointed as such Committee, Edward P, Doyle of New York, Herschel Whitaker of Detroit, Michigan, and W. L. Powell of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. A paper was read by Herschel Whitaker on ‘The Artificial Propagation of Black Bass.” A paper was read by Tarlton H. Bean on “The White Fish.” A paper was read by Col. Marshal, McDonald, United States Fish Commissioner on ‘The Relation of the Fisheries to the Community.” Col. Marshal McDonald invited the members of the Society to a trip down the river on the United States 6 Fish Commission Steamer ‘‘Fish-Hawk,” and placed the steamer at the disposal of the Society. The President, in the name of the Society, thanked Mr. McDonald cordially for his invitation and accepted it. A paper was read by Livingstone Stone on the ‘‘Non- Feeding Habits of Chinook Salmon.” A paper was read on “Handling of Adhesive Eggs,” by J.J. Stranahan, On motion, meeting adjourned to meet Thursday, May 17th, at ten o'clock. MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER PROMPTLY AT TEN O'CLOCK. A resolution was passed, thanking the Pennsylvania Fish Commission and the Protective Association of Philadelphia for their kindness in providing an enter- tainment for the delegates. On motion, the Secretary was directed to enter upon the minutes of the meeting an expression of the Society’s thanks to Col. Marshal McDonald for his kindness in putting the steamer Fish-Hawk at the disposal of the Society. The following resolution was offered by Secretary Doyle, and unanimously adopted : WHEREAS, the proceedings of this meeting have been fully and accurately reported in the press of this city, therefore be it RESOLVED, that the thanks of the Society be tendered to the newspapers of the City of Philadelphia for their kind appreciation of the importance to the Vi people generally of the interest the Society represents and the consideration the press has given to the re- ports of its proceedings. The Secretary offered the following resolution, which, upon motion, was unanimously adopted. RESOLVED, that the Committee on Increase of Membership be requested to invite all Fish Protective Associations of the United States to join the American Fisheries Society, on payment of Three Dollars each for annual dues, such membership to entitle the said associations to representation by one delegate at the annual meetings of the Society. The Committee on Nominations presented the following report : To THE MEMBERS OF THE AMERICAN FISHERIES SOCIETY: Gentlemen :—Your Committee on Nominations, to whom was referred the matter of reporting candidates for the various officers of the Society, have met and considered the matter referred to them, four mem- bers of the Committee being present, Mr. May not sitting, and have directed me to make the following report. For President, W. L. May of Nebraska; for Vice- President, R. O. Sweeny of Minnesota; for Treasurer, Frank J. Amsden of New York; for Recording Secretary, Edward P. Doyle of New York; for Corresponding Secretary, Dr. James A. Henshall of Ohio. Executive Committee, H. H. Cary of Georgia, L. D. Eluntington of New York, Henry «CC. Ford of Pennsylvania, Calvert Spensley of Wisconsin, Charles 8 L, Chamberlayne of Massachusetts, and Hoyt Post of Michigan, all of which is respectfully submitted. On motion, the report was received and unanimously adopted, and the officers declared elected for the en- suing year. The Committee on Place and Time of Next Meeting reported in favor of meeting in the city of New York, on the second Wednesday of June, 1895. On motion, report was adopted. On motion, the following resolution was adopted : RESOLVED, that the Secretary of the Society be directed to enter upon the minutes of the meeting an expression of the thanks of the delegates present to the members of the Pennsylvania Fish Commission and Pennsylvania Fish Protective Association for the gen- erous entertainment provided to the members of the Society attending this meeting. REPORT OF RECORDING SECRETARY. GENTLEMEN : The writer of this, although elected Recording Sec- retary at the meeting held in Chicago, in 1893, never accepted the office, and the question of determining his successor was referred, with power, to the Executive Committee although no action was taken by that body. This statement is made partly as an apology for what may have seemed to the members careless and negli- gent management of his office by the Recording Secre- tary. Publication and delivery of the report was delay- ed and a number of matters of importance given insufficient attention. Asa partial result of this in- attention to business the membership of the Society has not increased, the total active membership remaining at about 200, and with an active Recording Secretary the membership of this Society could be easily increased to 2,000 or 3,000 persons, and the sphere of its influence and importance enormously extended. The result of some work done in 1892 convinces me of this. At that time I succeeded in inducing every Fish Commis- sioner of the United States to join this Society, and I am satisfied that by faithful work every Fish Protective Association of the United States would have at least one representative in our Association. This would give us an influential and extensive membership, powerful and good for securing desired protective legislation and in educating public sentiment so that such legislation might be thoroughly enforced. The annual meetings of such a Society, with delegates representing well organized local Societies throughout the United States, would attract great attention and the result of its de- liberations be of the utmost weight. In view of the growing interest of the people in matters relative to fish 10 cultivation and protection and the increasing public appreciation of the economic value of the work of the State and National Commissions, it seems to me that an attempt should be made to have this Society made the mouth-piece and representative of this aroused public sentiment. The people then speaking through an organized body could express more clearly what was needed to protect the fish and game, and such an ex- pression would have more weight than coming from an individual or local association. If the American Fish- eries Society could be madea strong central organiza- tion, as I have suggested, we would have an association whose influence upon all questions affecting this most important subject (the maintenance of one of the great sources of the food supply of the people) would be all powerful. The suggestions of such an organization would never be slighted and its recommendations would be welcomed and adopted. I have prepared and will submit for the consideration of the Society a resolution providing for a committee of three who shall be charged with securing an increased membership for this Society. This committee to have power to send out circularsand to form other committees, and to do everything it may deem necessary to secure members subject, of course, to the right of the Society to accept or reject any appli- cant for membership. Very respectfully, EDWARD P. DOYEE: es 1893. July 20. Dec. 28. 1894. May 14. 1893. July 3t. 11 PRE ASR Si hE PORT: R. O. Sweeny, Sr. IN ACCOUNT WITH AMERICAN FISHERIES SOCIETY Dr. To check from H.C. Ford $126.86 To membership dues paid TM UORGAUC.. vk a Metres 159.00 Membership dues collect- Sak uprio dates ys ane cs. 138.00 Cr. Mostase stanipse.. 4..14.:9 2200 ling oe eae: paces N. Ae C incullsgs, Tite. fi 16.65 PATO Scr ee he Re eke 1.00 Fl eR is a Se pec 1.00 Collection an. checks)... 20 J. Le Tourneau, print- ing bills and envelopes... 4.00 H.Whitaker, Stenography C Ineaeor meeting 2 20.00 SEERA S 2 ero at Une aren 1.00 Express charge on Pam- Phlets: ns chen ata Oa. Ta85 Jno. M. Davis, printing FepOliss sane s 278.50 Express) charvet..0.,..-215 276075 $423.86 12 1894. DtaMpS S20: Sued oo eee 3.00 April17 May Flint, N. Y., Steno- Sra peyote. ee 14.62 ee 20.0) LARS, 1 ayes ay SAE 1.00 St dea de ourndan, Paint. IES os Sea cee ctr Rael ate 1.00 ie (ile dy ROOmey NAN ibe aaite INS TEDOT 1.) oct es, 10.00 Cash anh y tess 67.49 $423.86 R. O, Sweeny, Sr., Treasurer. DuLvutH, MInv., | May 147TH, 1894. Examined and found correct, May 2oth, 1894. : H. H. Cary, Audzteng Committee. | 13 ADDRESS: OF THE PRESIDENT. GENTLEMEN OF THE AMERICAN FISHERIES SOCIETY : When your society met in these rooms in 1889, the organization that then extended to you its welcome was desiginated ‘The Anglers’ Association of Eastern Pennsylvania.” A broader view, however, of the work confronting them in their State, prompted a change of name to “The Pennsylvania Fish Protective Associa- tion.” Under this title the work commenced by its members as anglers for the perpetuation and increase of fish in Pennsylvania for purposes of sport has been raised to the higher and nobler plans of propogating and protecting the supply of food and game fish for the bene- fit of the people. And for this end it has sedulously labored and steadily impressed upon Fish Commission- ers and legislatures the fulfillment of its motto “The enforcement of the laws and the protection of the spawning fish.” This statement, however, implies nought that is derogatory to the angling fraternity, for from the anglers came the first fish culturists. Seth Green and Thaddeus Norris learned first to cast the fly before they delved into the mysteries of hatching boxes. And even at this late day, our anglers, men of close observation, whose calling renders them familiar with the habits of fish, can often correct errors that ichthyolo- gists and fish culturists sometimes erroneously promul- gate. Asan instance, a fish cultural article relative to shad appeared a few years ago stating that shad always spawned between nine and twelve at night. A thought- ful man might well have wondered how any fish culturist could discern spawning shad in these dark hours, but it was reserved to an observant angler on the Upper Delaware to utterly disprove this theory and show that shad spawned in broad daylight. 14 In drifting over the quiet eddies of the river, he had looked down into the clear waters and there above the gravel bars had seen the exudation and impregnation of spawn, a sight than can be witnessed any day during the shad season on the Upper Delaware. The continuous testimony of anglers against the intro- duction of foreign fish into our waters, and especially into our trout streams, is also bearing its fruit in the recommendation of our State Commissioners to plant no foreign trout in the native trout streams, for if the anglers are to be trusted, and there is no reason to doubt their opinion, our native brook trout are far superior in edible and gamey qualities to the foreign importations, and therefore as the best fish they are dest for the streams. Our angling friends say also that the European Carp is fast becoming a nuisance in many of our waters, and though coming with the reputation of a vegetarian, labors under the imputation of devouring the spawn and sometimes the young of better fish. On this, the twenty-third annual meeting of your Society, it might be well to take a brief retrospect of the past. When this society was formed in 1870, fish cultural operations were in their infancy. The Michigan Com- mission that now pours its millions of white fish and pike perch fry into the surrounding great lakes, was not created until 1871, a year later. The New York Com- mission was in a similarly inchoate state. The Pennsyl- vania Commission was just beginning to have its con- ception in the brains of a few enthusiastic anglers, so that the first meeting of the Society was composed not most- ly of Fish Commissioners, as at the present, but of the Fish Culturists, and by them was named the American Fish Culturists Association. In 1878 this title was changed to that of the American Fish Cultural Asso- ciation, and in 1884 tothe American Fisheries Society, which name it has since retained. 15 Probably there is no better way of measuring the pro- gressive strides of fish culture in the United States than to take the single instance of a State like Pennsylvania. Twenty-three years ago there was no trout hatchery in the State. The Fish Commission had just been created. About two thousand black bass were distri- buted in the larger Eastern rivers and streams, and with the aid of Seth Green afew hatching boxes for shad were at work in the Susquehanna and Delaware. But little restrictive legislation had been enacted, and even these protective laws were not enforced, for the people generally looked on the fishery laws as so many restrictions on personal liberty, and they were held in supreme disfavor. Every stream in the State, from the Delaware and Susquehanna rivers down to the mountain trout streams, was filled with the deadly fish weirs that were rapidly depleting the waters of their supply of fish food ; and there was no restocking to restore the constant decrease of fish. People did not then pause to reflect that even as their land would be exhausted if the nutritive ele- ments of the soil were not constantly renewed so the fruitfulness of the waters would become barren if their fish supply was not kept up. This was the condition of Pennsylvania waters in the early seventies, and for some years later ; for reform, especially when tardy and experimental, requires time for its successful develope- ment. It would be interesting, but too lengthy, to note the different processes of the gradual change that has restored to Pennsylvania her great shad fisheries of the Delaware, that has made the City of Erie one of the largest fish marts on the great lakes, and that has re- newed her thousands of trout streams, for many of you may not be aware that Pennsylvania next to Maine has more trout streams, and more trout producing area, than any State in the Union. It would be interesting to note the steady enactment 16 of restrictive laws, not without opposition, and to mark the contest of progress with ignorance and lawlessness, until to-day the fishery laws are respected where they were once set at nought. Within the last three months, from our hatcheries thirty millions of white fish have gone into Lake Erie, eighty millions of wall-eyed pike have been deposited in the same lake, and in our larger rivers and streams. Over four million of the different varieties of trout have been placed in our streams. Five million of blue pike are hatching in the Erie Hatchery for the benefit of that lake, or a total of one hundred and nineteen millions of fish planted to replenish the food supply of the people, to say nothing of the millions of shad fry that during the season will be deposited by the United States Commis- sion in the Delaware and Susquehanna, by our own hatching on the Upper Delaware. Do not think, gentlemen of the American Fisheries Society, that these weighty statistics are mentioned boastfully, as showing what Pennsylvania has done, and leaving the inference that no other state has done as well. The history of Pennsylvania fish culture is like- wise the history of Michigan, New York and Wisconsin fish culture. It is the history of the American Fisher- ies Society, for the men who are the members of this Society have made such statistics possible and_ practi- cable. | Yet, gentlemen, it would seem that this Society should have a greater work marked out for it than to merely meet once a year for the purpose of collating experiences and papers. Its influence should be felt where legisla- tion beneficial to fish cultural interests is opposed by adverse influences. It should be a force in the condem- nation of erroneous views; and should not hesitate to make itself heard where the expression of its opinion would be a potent factor in the determination of a correct course in fishery matters. With just and impartial decisions, and uncontrolled by faction, the American 17 Fisheries Society has before it a future, which if properly developed, will make it a power in fishery matters even greater than it has been in the past. The Society is National in its membership and in its work, and fishery issues that are National should not be foreign to it. Its vigilance should extend not only over our inland lakes, our interior streams and rivers, but also to the broad Pacific and the nearer Atlantic, to correct abuses that clearly come within its province for vigorous condemnation. BENNY €) PORD; President, AMERICAN FISHERIES SOCIETY. PAPERS READ BEFORE THE American Fisheries Society, WITH THEIR DIsSCUSSiIoNns: WHEN SHAD WERE A PENNY A=PIECE. BY CHARLES HALLOCK. Every schoolboy knows in a general way that shad ‘were once so abundant in the Connecticut river that hired men used to stipulate that they should be served with only a limited quantity per week for food, but I dare say few people, adolescent or adult, are aware that it was con- sidered disreputable a century and a half ago to eat shad, and that the epithet of ‘‘shad-eater” was regarded as most _ obnoxious and opprobrious in New England. Whether it was because shad were in common use by the vagabond Indians who occupied the valley, or because their very cheapness and abundance made them vulgar, history does not state. But itis of record that shad were overlooked, thrown out, and despised as food bya large proportion of the English occupants of the old towns for a period of one hundred years after their settlement. Only poor people ate shad in those days. Shad eating implied a deficiency of pork, and to be destitute of pork indicated poverty. Even now an apology is sometimes made when a family has no ‘‘meat,” 19 as pork was always designated. The story istold of a well-to-do family in Hadley, which was always an aris- tocratic town, who, hearing a knock at the door just as they were about to dine on this tabooed fish, incontin- ently hid the platter under the bed. Indeed, so ground into popular sensibility was this ancient prejudice, that as recently as forty years ago members of the Connecti- cut Legislature were sometimes taunted with the epithet of “shad eaters.” The radical change of appreciation which has taken place since can be realized when we find these same people boasting now of the superlative quality of their shad as compared with all others in the market. Not until forty years before the Revolution was this economic ban removed and shad became a merchantable commodity. Connecticut shad in barrels were first ad- vertised in Boston in 1736, though they were current in river towns for at least three years previous at one penny a-piece. By 1773 prices had advanced to two or three pence, and in 1778 several thousand barrels were put up for the Continental troops. In 1779 the price reached four pence ha’penny, and after the dam was placed at South Hadley Falls in 1795 the number of shad in the river perceptibly diminished and the price gradually ad- vanced to six pence, nine pence, one shilling, and then higher, until men ceased to buy shad to barrel for family use. Thenceforward they became a fancy fish and a luxury, even replacing the salmon, which had _al- ways maintained a high precedence, but had now also disappeared by reason of the dams which obstructed their ascent of the river. Shad never passed the Bellows Falls, at Walpole, New Hampshire, nor the falls of the Chicopee river, in Massachusetts, though salmon surmounted both. In 1739, according to Sylvester Judd, the historian, the town of Brookfield petitioned the General Court for leave to make a fishway for shad through the ledges of rocks across the Chicopee at Springfield, so that they might come up the river into the ponds, but Springfield 20 opposed, and permission was not granted. The burg- hers feel differently now. Until the erection of the dam at Holyoke in 1849 caused an effectual blockade, shad were fairly abundant in the lower reaches of the Con- necticut and falls ; wherever they occurred were always chosen fishing places for both salmon and shad. Gangs of professional fishermen hired valuable seining privileges, and during the fishing season in April, May and early June, rival camps were often the scenes of much horse play and frolic at off hours. History tells how the farmers and netters used to gather from all parts of the adjacent valley, and even from Berkshire, to the number of 1,500 or more at a time, just as they gather now on the tributaries of the Columbia when salmon are running, or on the rivers of Nova Scotia for alewives and gaspereaux. Since the construction of the Holyoke dam many efforts have been made to restock the Connecticut with salmon and shad, and with partial success as respects the latter. But it is very doubtful if its old prestige ever returns, and certain that shad will never again be sold for a penny a piece. AFTER THE READING OF THIS PAPER, Mr. Ford said : ‘“‘ The lower part of the Delaware is so taken up with nets that the fish have very little chance to reach the spawning beds. In the upper part of the Dela- ware River the fish weirs cause a great deal of anxiety but we have at last secured legislation which has eradicated them. We have tried to secure reciprocal legislation between New York and New Jersey so that we can make it illegal to take shad on Saturday till twelve o’clock on Sunday, thus giving the shad one day to get up the river, but naturally we have been unsuccessful. There should be some means devised by which the shad could reach the spawning grounds in the upper part of the river. Now, gentlemen, the construction of 21 dams in the Delaware, River at Lackawaxen, has helped us very much, althought this is one hundred and forty miles above Philadelphia.” Dr. Cary, of Georgia, asked if there were several well authenticated instances where shad have passed up the fishways. He says, that it is known that other fish do, but as the shad is a very nervous and easily fright- ened fish, I do not believe that there are many in- stances where they have been known to pass up the fishway. Mr. Ford said, ‘‘They have passed into New York in very large numbers and through the fishway in Lacka- waxen Dam. If you will look into the ’91 Report of the New York Fish Commission, you will find that one of the game and fish protectors states that he saw them in such large quantities that they completely covered the bottom of the river and were taken in large numbers.” Colonel Cary said that in Georgia the city of Au- gusta builta dam across the Savannah River. The people of South Carolina living above the dam protest- ed against the building of the dam, and as a compromise six McDonald fishways were directed to be built in the dam. He had heard nothing from South Carolina since, but the people on the Georgia side above the dam complained that the flishways were inoperative. He himself had visited every fishway in the northern and eastern states, but had never learned satisfactorily that shad had ascended them. There was no doubt in his mind as to their value to other fish, especially sal- mon, but he doubted whether fish as nervous and timid as shad are known to be, would ascend a fishway. He would like some authority to answer on the question, as the matter was being again agitated on the Georgia side of the Savannah River. 22 THE HANDLING OF ADHESIVE EGGS. J. J. SERANAEAN, OF OFT: My excuse for preparing a paper on the handling of adhesive eggs must be the general interest taken among fish culturists in the subject, and the difficulty formerly experienced in this field. I however, have a purpose, slightly ulterior in its bearing, and that is to correct a statement made by Professor Jacob Reighard of Michi- gan, at the last meeting of the Association, as to my plan of handling the eggs of the pike perch. In his paper the Professor stated in substance that my mode of handling adhesive eggs is to permit them to form into a mass and then separate them by rubbing through ascreen. Of course it will go without the saying that the Professor has been misinformed. Our plan is— or rather was—to work the eggs continually until the adhesive tendency has passed away, changing the water from time to time, placing them in fifteen gallon wood- en tubs—the same used in collecting—on their arrival at the station, where for about twenty-four hours they are left in running water, the watchman stirring them from time to time, or at least once each half-hour. At the end of the above named time the eggs are fully hardened and not liable to injury. They are then put through a wire screen admitting the passage of but one egg at a time through its meshes, the lumps re- maining being rubbed through the screen with a large paint brush with long bristles. Careful experiments have demonstrated that the eggs are not injured by this course, while if the lumps are permitted to go into the jars the eggs composing them are invariably lost through being carried over by the 23 formation of air or gas bubbles within the egg mass or through fungusing. This process, although fairly successful, is very tedious, consuming much valuable time, when the spawn taker is most busy. Many experiments have therefore been made to prevent adhesion among the eggs by both chemical and mechanical means, among the pioneers in this field being Professor Reighard. Following his directions this spring, I placed in the hands of Mr. John Dukes, one of our most experienced spawn takers, one quart of dry corn starch dissolved in five gallons of water and directed him to place therein, after impregnation and three minutes interval, one gallon of the eggs of the pike perch. Believing that the Professor’s plan might be improved upon, in another keg I placed finely dissolved swamp muck in a solution of about the consistency of porridge, two quarts of this to ten gallons of water, with instruc- tions that the spawn taker place in this such quantity of eggs as the keg would reasonably hold, three gallons being our rule. Mr. Dukes followed instructions, as far as practicable, and brought in one gallon of eggs in starch and two gallons in muck. He reported that if the starch was left ten or fifteen minutes without stir- ing it settled into a hard cake on the top of the egg mass, incorporating the upper layers, and that it was more work to keep the eggs free with the starch than under our former plan of constant stirring until the adhesive tendency disappears, as in the one case the eggs need at- tention only while being freed, while in the other they must be almost constantly stirred until the station is reached. He reported that the muck entirely prevented ad- hesion and gave no trouble whatever. After arriving at the station both lots were examined and then placed under running water as usual. The motion of the current carried over nearly all of the starch and a considerable portion ofthe muck. The next day, 24 about twenty-four hours after being taken, these two lots were separately removed from the kegs, passed through a screen with meshes just large enough to easily admit of the passage of a single egg, the same as all our eggs are treated, when it was found that there were practi- cally no lumps in either case. In the muck lot there was one lump of five eggs and two of three each, while in the starch lot there was still less, two or three of three eggs each. They were then both put into a screen box with mesh fine enough to just hold the eggs, and all muck was washed out, there being practically no starch re- maining. Examination was then made of both lots with the microscope, which showed minute particles of muck and starch, respectively, adhering thickly all over the outer membrane of the eggs, thus preventing, as Prof. Reighard has shown, the eggs from coming into im- mediate contact with each other, and thus preventing adhesion. Both lots were worked entirely separate, not being doubled up with others, and showed as near as could be judged by guage measurements a nearly equal percentage of good eggs, about 9% per cent. above the average of the house, the muck eggs being the best. On April 16th Henry Curtis, John Dukes and Fred Miller were each furnished with starch and muck and fully instructed in the use of each. The muck was cut down to one quart to the keg, which prevented adhesion. All these spawn takers reported that it required almost constant work to keep the starch from settling into a hard mass, and that it required more work than the old way, while the muck gave no trouble at all, the eggs and muck being simply agitated gently just before in- troducing a new lot of eggs. Mr. Curtis finding that the starch settled into a mass unless frequently stirred, worked a considerable portion of it out of the keg. These eggs turned out very fine. Oscar Betts took three jars, about ten quarts, on the 17th, with starch and reported much trouble, but the 25 eggs were fine. Thisclosed the taking of eggs in starch solution. Eleven jars were taken in all. Thirty-two were taken in the muck solution. A slight accident in doubling up sample jars treated | in the old way prevent exact records of the percentage hatched from eggs taken the same day by the three processes, but a comparison of those taken in muck and starch, and all the other eggs in the house, showed an advantage for the two former of from 7 to 8 per cent.,the measurements being taken with the eggs in the jars by guage, the muck treated eggs, as a whole, being the best. An experiment made after the egg collecting season had closed showed that the addition of about ten per cent. of muck to the starch entirely prevented the starch from settling in a hard mass. The muck was prepared by taking black muck from the shores of a pond near by, thoroughly mixing to a very thin solution with water, letting the vessel set about half a minute to settle out the coarser and heavier particles, then decanting off the water holding the fine particles in solution, which was left to settle, when the nearly clear water was poured off, the muck being then rubbed through a fine wire screen, when it was ready for use. The process is very simple, and the muck ready for use easily produced in large quantities. Whatever credit is due in the success of these exper- iments much of it belongs to Professor Reighard, whose able papers, published by The Michigan Fish Commis- sion and profusely illustrated in their annual reports, have been of great service to us in the handling of the eggs of the pike perch. Through them, and assisted by the microscope, I have been able to instruct our spawn takers and impress thoroughly on their minds the great importance of using continual care in the taking, im- pregnating and handling of all kinds of eggs This work is bearing good fruit as will be seen in the _per- centage of pike perch eggs hatched this season. 26 FISH CULTURE AND FISH PROTECTION. THE CHINOOK SALMON. (Oncorhynchus chouica; Salmo quinnat.) ITS NON-FEEDING HABITS IN FRESH WATERS. BY LIVINGSTON STONE. It is an admirable provision of nature that the great armies of anadromous fish that annually ascend fresh- water streams to spawn, where there is, practically speak- ing, no food for them, should be so constituted that they are not obliged, in order to sustain life, to feed in fresh water. Mammals are said to be more ravenous than ever at corresponding periods ; but in the case of anad- romous fishes, and possibly of almost all fishes at the spawning season that congregate in large numbers over | limited areas, a wonderful exception is made in their favor, in consequence of which they are not only not obliged, in order to support life, to feed where there is no food, but, in the case of Chinook salmon (Ouxcorhy- uchus choutca), their alimentary organs are so modified at the spawning season that they could not eat if they would ; and in consequence of this again they probably do not suffer from hunger, for if the ability to eat be removed, by natural causes, we expect nature to remove also the desire to eat. One can hardly help wishing that industrial armies had also been included in this exception at all seasons of the year. That such a provision of nature in the case of fishes is necessary—is absolutely indispensable, indeed—is obvious. The often-repeated story of salmon so thick 27 in fresh-water streams that one could cross the stream on their backs if he could keep his balance, ‘is true. The writer has seen salmon like that scores of times. It happens indeed every year in all good salmon streams where the primeval abundance of the fish has not been reduced by human agency. Now, imagine all these streams filled, as they are every spawning season, for weeks and months, with thousands, yes, hundreds of thousands of salmon, all crowded together where there is no food for them, and suppose at the same time that it was necessary to their existence to have food. What would be the result? The result would inevitably be that they would soon be driven wild with hunger, and would doubtless in their desperate extremity endeavor, if possible, to return to the ocean. Later on, if they continued to stay in fresh water, they would die of starvation, before the days of their spawning were accomplished, and ultimately the race would in conse- quence become extinct. It is evident therefore that the salmon must be en- abled to live without food in their fresh-water spawning streams. Otherwise it would be simply suicidal for them to go up the streams to spawn. In other words, if the salmon must of necessity go where there is no food, they must also of necessity be provided with the power of living without food. The common objection to the statement that salmon do not feed in fresh water, is one that comes up at once in every mind instinctively, namely, that it is not natural for an active creature like a salmon to go without food for so long a period as the salmon have to. The argu- ment, put concisely, is that it is unnatural that they should live so long as they do in fresh water without feeding, and consequently it cannot be that they do not feed there. The reply is that it is much more unnatural that, being compelled to feed in order to sustain life, the salmon should be sent into places to stay for months where there is no food to be had. This would be un- 28 natural indeed. On the other hand is it not the most natural thing in the world, since the salmon must of necessity be sent up into rivers where there is no food for them, that they should be so constituted that they should neither be starved to death nor tortured by hunger for want of food? Let us look now at some facts bearing upon the question. Some years ago, a large salmon hatching station was built on the Clackamas River in Oregon, and each year a rack was constructed across the river to prevent the ascending salmon from going up the river beyond the station. In the year 1888 the rack was put across the river in March, and during the summer of that year there were, it is safe to say, upward of 5,000 full grown salmon (Oncorhynchus chouzca) in sight below the rack. The salmon did not begin to spawn till the middle of Sep- tember. The great body of these fish were there three months, many of them four months, and some of them five months. During all that summer there was not a moment, night or day, when there were not hundreds of these fish struggling to get past or through the ob- struction in front of them, and in all that time there was not visible food enough where they were in the river to provide them with an ounce of food a-piece once a week. In one place the salmon were so thick that a person standing on the rack could with an ordin- ary carriage whip reach 500 full grown salmon averag- ing 20 lbs. a-piece in weight, and all of them actively struggling all the time to hold their places against the current. Nofood whatever was there. Noappreciable amount of food could have come down through the rack to them. No food could they possibly have had except such microscopic nutriment as may have existéd in the water, and there must have been only infinitesimally small rations of this, when divided up among so many thousand pounds of fish. The only conclusion left is that they must have lived several months practically without eating. There is no question whatever about these facts. 29 The writer saw the salmon below the Clackamas rack almost every day during the summer of ’88. Hun- dreds of ether people saw them, too. The same thing has happened every year except that there are not so many fish now and they are not stopped so early in the year. The same thing happens every year at the Mc- Cloud River in California, where the U. S. Fish Com- mission has its salmon breeding station, named after Prof. Baird, which the writer has had charge of and where he has watched the salmon for nearly twenty seasons. The salmon do not feed in these streams, or if they do their food is invisible, The same thing hap- pens every year in Rogue River, Oregon, where Mr. Rk. ) Hume has had’ fer over fifteen years a salmon hatchery on a large scale. Mr. Hume says in his little pamphlet (‘‘Salmon of the Pacific Coast,” p. 25) that “it has been the custom at his hatching pond to hold salmon nearly four months, even after they had been held in the river for some time prior to being placed in the pond, and this without supplying them with any sort of food.” Many more instances might be furnished of salmon living a long time in fresh water without eating, but those just given would seem to be sufficient. It may be mentioned, however, as incidentally confirming this truth, that although hundreds of salmon have been found with absolutely nothing in their stomachs, not a single instance has ever come to light, at least to the writer's knowledge, of a genuine Chinook salmon being caught any considerable distance above tide water with a full stomach. Futhermore, although thousands of salmon have been known to live several months without eating, not a single case has ever been produced to show that a salmon has not been able to live in fresh water without eating. It does seem impossble that any creature above the grade of reptiles could live so long and keep so active without eating. It does seem impossible, and hence people argue that ‘“‘being impossible, it cannot be true,” 30 but it is a well-known principle of logic that an @ przorz argument like that has no weight whatever against the argument of one unanswerable fact. Noa przorz argu- ment based on the general principle that animals can- not live for months without eating can hold for a mo- ment against actual well-authenticated facts that prove that salmon have so lived without eating, and the Clacka- mas, McCloud and Rogue River hatcheries furnish these facts without limit and with overwhelming con- clusiveness. It is not claimed that the salmon thrive and get fat on this way of living. On the contrary, they get very weak and finally very much emaciated in fresh water. From the moment they pass above tide water they begin to fall off in weight, appearance and gen- eral condition, and they never under any circumstances whatever improve their condition afterward. They goon getting weaker and thinner. Every day their blood grows less red and less abundant, until at last their great store of strong red blood that they brought from the sea almost entirely disappears. Every day the rich layers of fat between their flakes of flesh become less noticeable till they disappear also. The dark rich pink of the flesh itself changes to a dirty white. Even their scales are absorbed into the body. Everything about their appearance indicates that a tremenduous draft is being made upon their physical organization. It is without doubt the draft that nature is making upon their flesh to keep their vital organs in the activity necessary to sustain life, and to develope the growing seed that will replenish the next generation. For here, let me also say,it is not claimed because salmon live with- out eating, that there is nothing whatever to keep their vital forces in action. This would indeed be incredible. This would be having a fire without fuel, an effect with- out acause. It would be quite as absurd as the per- petual motion theory—indeed, it would be, in a sense, a realization of perpetual motion. The fire must have fuel, the vital processes going on within the fish must 31 be sustained by some supply of nutriment—this must be admitted, but this supply does not come from out- side the fish in the form of food. It comes from within the fish. It is the blood, the fat, the superfluous flesh that the salmon brings from the ocean in his own body that he lives on in fresh water, and that enables him to sustain life so long without taking food from outside into his stomach, and this explains—indeed it must ex- plain—why salmon do not have to feed in fresh water, It was remaked near the beginning of this paper that “the alimentary organs of the salmon are so modified at the spawning season that they could not eat if they would.” This is easily verified. If any one will ex- amine the viscera of a Chinook salmon, caught well above tide and near the spawning season, he will find that the stomach and throat of the fish are singularly contracted, so much so indeed that one cannot push one’s finger down the throat without lacerating the tissues, while the stomach is so shrunken that it will not hold a walnut. If it is very near the spawning season he will find the stomach still more contracted and always absolutely empty, with the exception of about half a teaspoonful of a yellowish, bilious-looking fluid. Having noticed the good natured controversy going on in the sporting papers about salmon not eating in fresh water, I began last fall to examine some of those that were caught at this station (Baird, Cal.), with especial reference to this question, intending at first to try 100 fish. We did, however, examine the stomachs of only 66 and then we stopped, because they were all exactly alike, and I was convinced that if we had tried 100 or 100,000 they would all have been the same. In every one.of them the throats were very much contract- ed, the stomachs very much shrunken, and all entirely empty with the exception of the yellowish looking fluid just mentioned. As to the throat and stomach, every fish was an exact counterpart of all the rest. Here we have another admirable natural adaptation 32 to circumstances. Since the salmon are sent into places where there is no food for them to eat, nature kindly takes away their ability to eat and also their desire to eat. If it were not for this wonderful adaptation of nature it seems probable that the salmon, retaining their appeti- tes, would become frantic with the ravenings of hunger, and abandoning the mission on which they were sent would, regardless of everything else, race back to the ocean to satisfy their hunger on the well-filled stores of food that they undoubtedly well remember leaving. Then, alas for their posterity. There would never be any The most grateful minded man that I ever heard of was one who, after he had lost every earthly possession, even his last crust of bread, thanked the Lord that he had not lost hisappetite. It seemsto mea subject both to ourselves and to the salmon of sincere gratitude that the fish do lose their appetites when they start on their mission through foodless streams to reproduce their species. It looks now as if it were pretty well settled that salmon do not feed in fresh water, but when the inquis- itors thought they had it all settled about the revolution of the earth by making Galileo retract his statement that the earth moved, the famous astronomer as he was being led away, was heard to murmur under his breath, ‘“It does move,” and now that it seems to be all settled so nicely about salmon not feeding in fresh water, I imagine I hear more than one veteran salmon hanger say, “They do feed in fresh water.” 1 admit ieee would be the last one to deny it, for not only do I know of enough instances of salmon being caught in fresh water with food in their stomachs, to make it folly to «deny it, but I have seen the food im inem stomachs myself. Last July in particular (July, 1893), I examined the stomach of a salmon caught in the McCloud River about six weeks before spawning season, which had in it four salmon eggs, and the newly 33 pulverized remains of several insects and larve. The salmon eggs came, of course, from the hook that caught it, but the insects it had doubtless picked up from the water in its usual manner of feeding. I must admit therefore that it is undeniable that food is taken by salmon in fresh water. It will be found on examination, however, in every instance where anything is discovered in the stomach of a salmon caught much above tide water, that the food is in very small quantities and com- posed of very small objects, such as would easily slip down a very smallthroat and enter a very small stomach, and satisfy only a very small appetite—not enough by any means to disprove the fact that the salmon might, if necessary, have lived without it, but enough never- theless to prove the fact that salmon do actually feed in fresh water. The truth is that the evidence compels us to admit both of these apparently conflicting facts, namely, that salmon can and do live for months in fresh water with- out food, and that they can and do feed during some of the time that they are in fresh water. These two facts © are not necessarily conflicting, however, though they may seem so at first. The writer’s own theory is that as soon as the salmon, coming from the sea, strike fresh water, their appetite begins to weaken, their throats begin to narrow, and their stomachs begin to shrink. This does not at first, however, entirely prevent them from feeding, but it changes them enough to enable them to overcome the temptation to return to their well-stocked feeding grounds in the salt ocean, and the longer they remain in fresh water the greater the changes become, and the temptation to turn back for food correspondingly less. There is probably no one specifi- ed time when an abrupt change comes which deprives them in an instant of their ability and their desire to feed, but in the writer’s opinion, the transformation comes on gradually, increasing constantly day by day 34 from the time that they leave tide water till at the near -approach of the spawning season their throats and stomachs become entirely incapacitated for receiving food, and the desire and ability to feed leave them en- tirely, but, notwithstanding their scanty supply at first and their entire abstinence afterward, the great reserve of superfluous flesh and blood which they bring with them in their own bodies from the bountiful ocean, en- ables them with little or no food in their stomachs to keep their vital organs in vigorous activity until their ‘momentuous mission up the fresh water streams is accomplished. Allow me in conclusion to make the precautionary statement that where the word salmon is used in this paper, the word is intended to refer to only one variety of salmon, namely Oxcorhynchus choutca, commonly known as the Chinook salmon, Columbia River salmon and Quinnat salmon. 35 MELA TIONS 'OF THE COMMUNITY TO THE FISHERIES: (A paper read before the American Fisheries Society, 1894.) As preliminary to the discussion of this topic, it is well to bring to the attention of this Society the extent and importance of our fishing industries. The United States Commission has recently completed and is now publishing a paper on the “Sraristics OF THE FISHERIES OF THE UNITED StTaTES.” By reference to this report you will find that the commercial fisheries of this country give employment to 182,407 persons; represents an investment in vessels, boats, fishing gear, buildings, wharves and other property, of $58,355,000, and yield products of the annual value of $45,000,000 in first hands. The cost to the consumer is probably three times the amount received by the fishermen, or about $130,000,000 per annum. If we add to the number of persons actually employed in the fisheries those who are dependent upon them, as also the large number of people engaged in various other occupations which are directly or indirectly dependent upon the fisheries, it is safe to assume that the fishing industries of the United States furnish the means of support to over 1,000,000 of the inhabitants of this country, or to one person in every sixty-five of population. The conditions under which our sea coast and great lake fisheries are prosecuted are peculiar, and without parallel when we compare them with the industries of the land. Individual ownership and control is the foundation upon which rests all of our industrial enter 36 prises other than those pertaining to the fisheries. The laws give full protection, and every one is free to enjoy the fruits of his enterprise and labor. The farmer plants in the full assurance that he and not another will reap the harvest. Heimproves his land and increases his investments, knowing that the greater usufruct de- termined by the exercise of intelligence and energy will inure to his own benefit. What is true of agriculture is alike true of the various industrial enterprises, man- ufacturing, mining, and commercial, which engage our people. We may safely trust their administration to the intelligence and enterprise of those engaged in them. In respect to our great commercial fisheries, the con- ditions are entirely different. Individual ownership of the open waters is not practicable, even if it were desir- able; nor can we safely trust to the individual to establish or conserve conditions which are necessary to maintain supply. Indeed it is not reasonable to expect that he will undertake to sow the seeds of a harvest which other men may gather. Intent on gain, he will fail to recognize or appreciate any deterioration of the fisheries, so long as his operations yield him a fair return for labor and investment. The ownership of the waters is in the State, and they should be farmed for the general use and benefit. The right of fishing of the individual is subject to the paramount right of the State to prescribe the conditions under which such right may be exercised. Equal privileges under the law and no invidious dis- criminations or unnecessary restraints upon the enter- prises of the fishermen should characterize the policy of the State in enacting and enforcing such regulations as may be found necessary for the conservation of the fisheries. The right of the community, through its representa- tives, to regulate the fisheries and to prescribe the con- ditions under which individuals may exercise the right oat — 37 or privilege of fishing being conceded, we must be _pre- pared to admit that the power of the State should be exercised with the most careful conservatism and con- sideration of the immediate interests to be affected. The community is concerned only as to the abundance, quality and price of the products drawn from the waters. It is indifferent as to the methods, except in so far as they affect the quantity or condition of the fish supply. When conditions are impaired ; when there is evidently a decrease in the fish food supply, then it is incumbent upon the State to adopt measures to arrest the decline. This policy is in the interest not of the community only but also of those who are engaged in the fisheries, or who are occupied with enterprises and industries which are related to them, since the security and profit of in- vestments depend upon the assiduity with which we guard the fisheries from the operation of causes which may determine permanent deterioration. The necessity of intervention to this end being satisfactorily established, we may attempt the regeneration by artificial propaga- tion on a sufficiently extensive scale to repair the waste by natural casualities and man’s operations, or we may so regulate the times, methods and apparatus of the fisheries as to permit natural reproduction under the most favorable conditions, or we may resort to both means, artificial propagation being pushed as far as prac- ticable in order to ease or release the restraints upon the operations of the fishermen. Undoubtedly the rational method of dealing with the fisheries is to supplement, as far as possible by artificial propagation, any deficiency in natural reproduction arising through the operations of the fisheries. Where this can be shown to be adequate, there should be no further interference with the fisheries by legal restrict- ions or prohibitions than is necessary to insure equal privileges under the law in the exercise of the common right of fishing, or to prohibit or restrict the use of 38 methods or apparatus that experience has shown to be unnecessarily wasteful or destructive. Whether we can rely entirely upon artificial propagation to compensate for the destruction effected through the agency of man, I am strongly inclined to doubt. The value of this re- source as a sufficient means of maintaining production and at the same time imposing little or no restraint upon the fishing enterprises is very forcibly illustrated by the history of the shad fisheries of the Atlantic coast rivers since 1880. This is a species which must find access to the fresh waters of the rivers in order to accomplish re- production. Where the streams are unobstructed it pushes its way up hundreds of miles from tidewater in order to find suitable spawning grounds. It does not spawn in the brackish or salt waters, and if it did the eggs would prove infertile. Under the present condi- tions of the shad fisheries, but a very small proportion of the shad approaching our rivers under the constraint of reproduction ever find their way to their spawning grounds in the rivers. Fully eighty per cent. are taken in the brackish water of the estuaries of our rivers or on the shores of the ocean or the great bays which indent the shore line. Under these conditions, we are compell- ed to depend largely, if not entirely upon artificial pro- pagation to repair the annual waste by natural casuali- ties and the fisheries. This great fishery is under con- ditions as artificial as is the corn or the wheat crop. Its permanence and such marked improvement as has taken place since 1880 in the annual value of the product is unquestionably to be attributed to the extensive measures. of artificial propagation which have been conducted ,with this species by the Fish Commissions of the different States on the Atlantic Sea Board and by the United States Fish Com- mission. Since 1885 there has been a steady and progressive increase in the annual value of the shad taken on the eee LU 39 Atlantic Sea Board, and at present the amount and value of the annual product is nearly double what it was in 1880. It might appear that the development of the a fishery as disclosed by the statistics of production from 1880 to 1892,. inclusive, would indicate that artificial propagation may be relied upon as adequate to maintain production, even under the most adverse conditions. We must consider, however, that the ability to maintain supply by this means can only continue so long as a sufficient number of shad are permitted to pass into the tivers to furnish the basis of a supply of eggs necessary to carry on the work I cannot disguise the fact that every year we have more reason to apprehend that the existing fishing conducted in the brackish and salt waters will eventually so reduce the number running into the rivers that we will no longer be able to rely upon artifi- cial propagation, unless aided by protective regulations and legal restraints upon the pound net fishing, not only in the rivers but also in the bays. When we turn to the important salmon fisheries of the Columbia River, we find the same conditions not only impending but accomplished. Comparing the average catch for the five years beginning with 1889 with the previous five years, we find that there has been an average reduction of 150,000 cases in the take of salmon, and areduced annual value of not less than three quarters of a million of dollars. This is undoubt- edly to be attributed to the fact that the appliances for the capture of salmon in the lower river are so numerous, so complete, and so fully occupy every channel of approach that at present very few salmon are able to reach their spawning grounds in the upper rivers. Now what is impending or “accomplished in the present con- ditions of the shad and salmon fisheries certainly will occur in regard to every species the spawning grounds of which are in the rivers, For it is evident, in regard Ae sere at em A ee cee 40 to any of them, the methods of fishing may be such as in a large measure to shut them off from their spawning grounds. Under such a state of things artificial propa gation on adequate scale could be no longer carried on for the reason that we would have no ripe fish from which to draw supplies of eggs. Now, what is true in regard to our river species is alike true in regard to all the coast species whenever the operations of the fisheries are such as to intercept in considerable measure the movement of mature fish to their spawning grounds. The necessity of the regula- tion of the fisheries by law is apparent in every case where a knowledge of the habits and movements of the fishes of our coastal waters is such as to indicate that existing methods do seriously interrupt or interfere with their approach to their spawning grounds. What shall be the character of the protective regulations required in the interest of the fisheries must be based upon a complete knowledge of the life history of the species. In regard to many of our coastal species, we are approaching a time when it will be possible to give con- clusive information upon this subject which may serve as a basis for such regulations as the conditions of the fisheries may require. You are all aware that the sentiment as to the neces- sity of protective regulations in reference to the coast fisheries is now active and aggressive. When the alle- gation is made that there is a material decline in the products of our fisheries, the fishermen who fear the re- sults of hasty legislation based upon inconclusive data reasonably ask for the evidence as to the decline in the coast fisheries which warrants the attempt to interfere by law with interests which employ a large number of men, a large investment of capital, and which yield products which are very important to the community. In considering the statistics of our fisheries we may consider the fisheries as a whole and by a comparison ——— aie 41 of the census taken at intervals ofa term of years, determine conclusively the facts as to aggregate increase or decrease in the period considered. Again, we may make the comparison by geographical divisions, seeking in this way to arrive at local fluctuations which are not indicated in the general aggregate ; and again we may take up the special fisheries for certain important econ- omic species, and by comparison of products determine the fact of increase or decrease in regard to this _parti- cular fishery. I hold in my hand a table giving the comparative summary of the fisheries of the entire United States for the years 1880 and 1892. Value of products |Persons Employed| Capital Invested 1880. 1892.* 1880. 1892. 1880. 1892. New England States.) 37,043 37,025 | $19,937,607 | $19,859,508 | $12,509,071 | $12,445,569 MiddleAtlantic States) 59,853 90,685 | . 12,685,343 | 19,405,151 | 16,360,517 | 19,047,580 South Atlantic States 7.540 16,138 695,160 1,693,076 1,256,578 1,589,894 Gulf States............ 5)132 12,019 545,584 2,993,080 1,227,544 2)499)495 Pacific States......... 16,803 "| 16,776 25748,383 8,873,813 59545+588 7y258,925 Great Lakes Region..} 5,050 95738 1)345)975 5)478,080 1,784,050 | 2,471,355 Grand total .... .| 131,426 182,376 37,958,040} 58,302,7°8| 38,683,348} 45,312,818 This table is taken from a report on the statistics of the fisheries of the United States, prepared in the divi- sion of Fisheries of the United States Fish Commission, and based upon field investigations conducted by the employees of the Commission in part under the direct- ion of Mr. J. W. Collins when Assistant in charge of the Division of Fisheries of the Commission, and in part by his successor, Mr. H. M. Smith, now in charge of that work The data are taken in large part from the books of the fishermen. They have been collated with care and judgment, and may be relied upon to *This year is placed at the head of the columns because it is the most recent one to which the statistics relate, and the one to which most of the figures apply. The data for the New England, Middle Atlantic and Pacific States are for that year, those for the South Atlantic States are for 1891, and those for the Gulf region and Great Lakes are for 1890. 42 furnish as accurate a statistical presentation of the con- ditions of the fisheries as can be obtained with the means and resources at the command of the Fish Commission. By reference to this table you will find that in 1892 the number of persons employed in all branches of the fisheries and related industries in all parts of the United States has increased 38.77 per cent. as compared with the number employed in 1888. The capital invested has increased 53.43 per cent. whilst the total value of the products of the fisheries has increased but 17.14 per cent. This indicates in a general way that the fisheries in 1892, taken as a whole, have not been so productive in proportion to the number of persons employed and capital invested as they were in 1880 We are, however, liable to err if we attempt to apply this general conclusion to the case of any particular fishery, though the general fact is broadly emphasized that our fisheries do not now yield the profitable return to individuals and to investments that they did in 1880. Referring to this same table and considering the sta- tistics of the fisheries by geographical divisions, we find that the fisheries of the New England States as a whole are practically unchanged since 1880. The number of persons employed is slightly less: the capital invested has been reduced less than one half of one per cent. while the value of the products has increased one half of one per cent. For the Middle Atlantic States we find the number of persons employed has increased 51 per cent.; the capital invested 53 per cent.; while the increased value of the products is only. 16; per cent. .For the South Atlantic States the number of persons employed has more than doubled, being 113 per cent.; the capital in- vested has increased 14 per cent.; while the value of the products rises to a little above 26 per cent. 43 In the Gulf States. the percentage of increase in persons employed is 137.95; the capital invested, 82 ; and the increased value of the products, 103. In the Pacific States the number of persons employed is about the same as in 1880;.the investment of capital has more than doubled, while the aggregate increase in value of products amounts to 30 per cent. In the Great Lake States the percentage of increase in persons employed is 92.63; of capital invested 232.7 ; the increased value of the products rising only to 38.52 per cent. The figures for the Great Lakes are very significant. With nearly double the number of persons employed in the fisheries, and with upward of 50 per cent. increase in the capital invested, there is but 17 per cent. increase in the total value of the product. This comparison is more significant when we consider that the increased . production has been brought about by the utilization for market supply of species of fish such as the herring and others which constitute but an insignificant portion of the total products of 1880. The most important fishery of 1880—that of the whitefish—has vastly deteriorated, the take in 1892 being considerably less than one half of the catch of 1880. And this result has arrived in spite of the fact that artificial propagation of the whitefish has been carried on on a stupenduous scale by the different State Commissions and by the United States Commission on all of the great lakes. This deterioration in the number of whitefish is clearly to be attributed to the methods employed, and the necessity of some restraint upon these methods is imperatively indicated, not only in the general interest of the consumer but in the interest of the fisheries themselves. I would now call your attention to a table of the com- parative statistics of the catch of certain species of fish in 1880 and 1892, taken from the same report: d4 COMPARATIVE STATISTICS OF THE CATCH OF CERTAIN PRODUCTS IN 1880 AND 1802. | 1880. 1892. jIncrease or decrease. . Pounds. Value. Pourds. Value, Pounds. Value. Alewives...... -..| 45,684,333 $526,546 | 50,176,183 $554,740 |-+13,491,850 as $28, 194 BIueEhshe So) > fee 14,707,708 366,756 | 15,957,836 637,305 |-+ 1,250,128 270,549 COde Boece ace os 8 2e| KQ}LI 7) 350 31475,106 | 92.643,811 2,996,691 |—26,493,539 |— 478,415 Lobsters ... ..... 20,238, 683 631,769 | 23,301,149 1,050,677 |-++ 3,062,466 |-+ 418,908 Mackerel... . .. -| 73)3%7)563 1,8 3,910 | 17,041,736 1,102,651 |— 56,275,827 |— 761,259 MGT cede 6,701,950 225,009 | 21,214,840 387,916 |+-14,512,890 162,407 Salmon. so. 2 sachs 51,633,824 1,086,339 | 93,826,527 39730416 |4-42, 192,703 2,644,077 Sea Bass.. 2,642,650 113,176 8,401,553 355,002 53758;903 242,426 Spanish Mackerel 1,887,423 131,639 15773)081 129,259 |/— 114,342 |— 2,380 + 271,808 Squeteague....... | 15,463,560 437,022 | 22,340.433 708,830 |-++ 6,876,873 In this table we have arranged by sections the statis- tics of a number of economic species which furnish the basis of important fisheries. We will take first the ale- wives or river herring, instituting always comparisons between 1880 and 1892. We find for this species an increased product of 59,000,000 pounds. And referring the increase and decrease to the different geographical sections in which this fishery is prosecuted, we find the increase wholly in the Middle and South Atlantic States, the New England product having fallen off about two and a half million pound. It would appear, therefore, that so far as this fishery is concerned the methods of fishing have had no influence upon the product, and that therefore no restrictions are necessary in regard to this species. As a matter of fact the capture of the herring is made largely in pound nets and in seines. When the fish are taken in the pounds many of them, both males and females, are ripe, and crowded together as they are, involuntary reproduction is accomplished, since the squeezing and crowding of the n ultitude in the net accomplish precisely the same process that we do in artificial propagation. The eggs under these conditions are fertilized in vast numbers—being adhes- ive and floating off with the tide, they attach themselves not only to the walls of the net but to every available 45 object in the tide way—and for this reason I am inclined to think that so far as the alewives are concerned the pound net fishing instead of working any disadvantage is actually improving the condition of this fishery all the time The next species in order is the bluefish. The cen- sus of 1880 gives the total catch of this species for the entire coast at 14,707,000 pounds. The catch of 1892 reaches nearly 16,000,000, being 1,250,000 pounds in excess of the catch of 1880. Considerigg the data by geographical sections we find that the decrease in this species in the New England States since 1880 has amounted to 4,223,000 pounds. The largest increase of 4,321,000 pounds is inthe Middle Atlantic States. The increase for the South Atlantic States is 602,000 pounds; for the Gulf States 545,000 pounds, this be- ing a new fishery for that section. Whether the vast decrease in the New England States is to be attributed to the methods employed there or is the result of the larger and growing catch in the Middle and South At- lantic States, is a matter about which we cannot at present form a conclusive opinion. The cod fishery is prosecuted mainly in the New England and Midddle Atlantic States; there being, however, an important and growing fishery in the North Pacific. Considering the fishery as a whole, we find a falling off of 26,500,000 pounds in product as com- pared with 1880, the decline being the largest in the New England States. It is to be noted in connection with this fishery that the species is taken almost entirely, if not entirely, by hook and line, and the greater proportion in offshore waters. The deterioration cannot, therefore, in this case be attributed to any of the different forms'of apparatus that are used in our coast waters. In the case of the lobsters we find an increase of 3,000,000 pounds in the product of 18¢2 as compared 46 with 1880, which is to be attributed probably in part to the stringent laws regulating this fishery which are now in operation, and in part to the great increase in the number of persons employed in the fishery. The mackerel is another important fishery to which I wish to call your attention. We find a decrease in this fishery in 1892 as compared with 1880 of 56,275,0co pounds. The great fluctuations in this fishery from year to year are inexplicable at the present time. In the absence of specific knowledge as to the spawning grounds of the mackerel and the conditions under which spawning takes place, we are not prepared to attribute any influence to methods as now pursued in affecting the results of the fisheries. The mullet fishery, which is more important in the South Atlantic and Gulf States, shows an increase of 14,000,000 pounds in 1892 as compared with 1880. This increase, however, has no significance as bearing upon the question of regulation, from the fact that it has arisen by the development of new grounds in the South Atlantic and Gulf States, and by more active fishing in the Middle Atlantic States. The salmon, you know, is one of the most important economic species of the West coast. We find in this case an increased production in 1892 of 3,730,000 pounds as compared with 1880. This certainly furnishes no argument in favor of unrestrained fishing so far as it relates to this species. The increase is due entirely to the development of new grounds, and has been accompanied by an alarming decrease in those rivers which in 1880 furnished a large part of the salmon for market. I refer particularly to the Sacramento and the Columbia Rivers, where there has been marked deterioration ' in the fisheries, clearly the result of the fishing operations. The sea bass, or black fish of New Jersey, shows an increased production of 5,758,000 pounds, which is 47 pretty equally distributed to the three geographical sections of the Atlantic Sea Board. There is no de- crease indicated anywhere in either the New England, the Middle or the South Atlantic States. The Spanish Mackerel is an important economic species, the greater supplies of which during 1880 were drawn from the Chesapeake region. Since that time the fisheries have been extended and largely developed in the South Atlantic and Gulf States. In spite of the productive fishing grounds of the Gulf States, we find a diminished production of 114,000 pounds in 1892 as compared with 1880, the production of the Middle Atlantic States having fallen from 1,852,000 pounds to 976,008 pounds. This fishery, I think, furnishes a marked example of the detrimental influence that unrestrained pound net fishing may exercise upon a coast species. The larger proportion of the catch of Spanish mackerel in the Middle Atlantic States is in the Chesapeake Bay by pound nets on the eastern and western shores The mackerel enter the Bay to spawn; the pound nets are set in the track of the run; the fish taken are nearly all spawning fish ; and the disposition of the apparatus of capture is such as to intercept them almost entirely in their approach to waters in which to spawn. In this way the great deterioration in the mackerel fishery of the Chesapeake is clearly to be attributed to the pound net fishing. This species, however, furnishes a clear and well-defined instance of deterioration which we can fairly attribute to the operations of the fishermen. The last species to which I wish to call your attention is the squeteague. We find for this species an increase of 6,876,000 pounds as compared with 1880; the in- crease being general for all the geographical sections in which the fisheries are prosecuted. In considering the question which I have brought to your attention in this paper, it will be interesting to 48 note the advance of public sentiment in Great Britain as to the necessity of protection to the sea fisheries in territorial waters since the publication of the report of the Trawling Commission of 1863. of which Professor Huxley was president. At that time there was little or no knowledge of the life history or the spawning habits of the different species which were the object of the commercial fisheries. There were no statistics upon which to build satisfactory conclusions. The commis- sion was forced to rely entirely upon the conflicting testimony of those engaged in the fishing interests. In speaking of the perplexities and embarrassments as to the conclusions to be drawn from the conflicting testimony of the fishermen, the Commission states as follows: ‘Fishermen as a class are exceedingly unobservant of anything about fish which is not absolutely forced upon them by their daily avocations, and they are con- sequently not only prone to adopt every belief which seems to tell in their own favor but they are disposed to depreciate a comparison of the present with the past. Nor in certain localities do they lack the additional temptation to make the worst of the present, offered by the hope that strong statements may lead the State to interfere in their favor with dangerous competitors.” The general conclusion of the Commission upon which the advocates of free fishing in this country base their protests against any interference whatever by the state in controlling their operations is as follows: “1, We advise that all Acts of Parliament which profess to regulate or restrict the modes of fishing pursued in the open sea be repealed; and that unre- stricted freedom of fishing be permitted hereafter. “rz. With respect to inshore fishing, although the evidence, so far as it is conclusive, appears to us to prove that the taking of small and immature fish has not yet produced any injurious effect upon the fisheries, 49 zt ts undoubtedly possible that, by the use of tmproved engines, the destruction of fry might reach such a pitch as to bear a large instead of, as at present, an insignifi- cant ratio of the destruction effected by the natural enemtes of fish, and by condttions unfavorable to ther extstence, ‘The existence of such a state of things, however, could only be determined by the examination of trust worthy statistics of the fisheries in question, extending over a considerable number of years. Should it ever be satisfactorily proved to have arisen, we conceive that the best remedial measure would be to place a restriction upon the size of the fish permitted to be brought ashore, and subject the possesser of fish below a certain specified size to penalties; but to avoid interfering with the implements of fishermen or with their methods of fishing. ‘For the present, we advise that all Acts of Parlia- ment which profess to regulate or restrict the methods of fishing pursued inshore be repealed ; with the ex- ceptions, purely on grounds of police, of the local Act regulating pilchard fishing at St. Ives; and, for that part of Loch Fyne which lies above Otter Spit, of the Act prohibiting trawling for herrings in Scotland.” In 1878, fifteen years after the investigation by Prof. Huxley and his associates, a second commission was ap- pointed to inquire into (1) the use of the trawl net and the beam trawl in the English seas, and the territorial waters of England and Wales ; (2), into the use of the seine nets and the ground seine on the coast of Cornwall and elsewhere; and (3), into the alleged destruction of fry and spawn of sea fish in estuaries of rivers and bays by the above and other modes of fishing. This Commission, of which Mr. Frank Buckland was chairman, reached the same general conclusion in regard to the decrease in the supply of fish arising by means of fishing operations as did the previous Commission of 50 1863. They, however, took strong grounds for establishing legislative restrictions for fixed engines, under which title is included the different pounds, weirs, traps and stake nets, which are in common use on our own shores. The views of the Commission in reference to this matter are of sufficient importance to warrant their quotation in full. LEGISLATIVE REGULATIONS FOR FIXED ENGINES. “So far as the fish themselves are concerned, it is not a matter of much importance whether they are taken by a fixed engine or by a movable net. Provided that the use of these engines is not injurious to the fishing, they ought apparently to stand or fall together; and we are inclined, in fact, to arrive at this conclusion with respect to all those engines which are either temporarily fixed to the soil, or which are merely attached, like the stow net, to an anchored boat. But as we have already stated there is another kind of fixed engine, permanently attached to the soil, which seems to us to require much more serious consideration. “From a fishery point of view there is this difference between a fixed engine and a movable net The fixed engine is always on the spot. It regularly works with every tide, requiring no rest and keeping no Sabbath. - The movable net, on the contrary, can only be worked by the active labor of the fisherman. Its use, therefore is intermittent, and its destructiveness limited. It is obvious that an engine that is at work with every tide must, or certainly may, catch more fish than a net whose use is limited to the capacity of the fishermen for endurance. The fixed engine, moreover, covers more ground than the movable engine. The fixed engines in Swansea Bay reach across the greater portion of the Bay. They frequently overlap each other. They do not, therefore, like the movable net, take only a propor- 51 tion of the fish, but they do, ormay, take all the fish passing up into that portion of the Bay. “The names which fixed engines bear sufficiently indicate their antiquity. ‘Weirs’, ‘garths’, ‘goryds’, ‘baulks’ ‘hangs’, ‘butts’ and ‘kettle nets’, are corruptions of Saxon, Celtic and Norman words, and have been handed down by successive generations of fishermen from their Saxon, Celtic and Norman ancestors. But, though the engines are certainly old, their use has never been tolerated. Their erection, except on the sea coast, was reprobated in Magna Charta; they have been pro- hibited by many succeeding statutes ; and fixed engines may be said to exist not by virtue of the law but in defiance of law. “There were two reasons which the Legislature con- stantly gave in the olden time for putting down these engines. In the first place, they interfered with the navigation ; in the next place they gave one fisherman a monopoly of the fishery which was nominally open to all the King’s subjects. Fixed engines were, in short, in the first instance, an encroachment on the public rights. Time has in most cases now given their owners a prescriptive right in their use. But the engines were originally an encroachment on the rights of others. The man who erected a fixed engine usually placed it on his own shore. He was usually possessed, therefore, of the soil on which the engine stood. But this is not always the case; the kettle nets in Rye Bay, and we believe many of the hose nets in Bridgewater Bay, are fixed on the property of the Crown ; and the same thing is probably true of other fixed engines. “We understand that in Rye Bay and on the Sussex coast, the Board of Trade, acting on the instigation of the Admiralty, have positively refused to allow the erection of any new fixed nets, or to permit the present nets to remain beyond the lifetime of their present possessors. We seeno reason why the same rule should 52 not be applied to all fixed engines, wherever situate, standing on the property of the Crown. It would per- haps be unjust to apply the same rule to fixed engines on private property. Property acquired by prescription has a prescriptive right to exist ; but even in this case we think that there would be no hardship in compelling the proprietor of a fixed engine to state the nature of the engines which he considered he was entitled to use, and to allow him _ thenceforward only to use such as had been actually worked during some time in the previous ten years.” The conclusion of the Commission in regard to these forms of apparatus is stated as follows : 1. That fixed engines confer a monopoly upon par- ticular fishermen, which is opposed to the ordinary principles of legislation. 2. That those fixed engines which are erected on foreshore, the property of the Crown, should be abolished on the termination of the existing leases or lives on which they are held. 3. That no new fixed engine should be erected on either public or private property. Passing now to the Trawling Commission of 1885 which pursued the same line of inquiry as the previous Commission already alluded to, we find the following conclusions and recommendations based upon the re- sults of their labors: SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS. I. In territorial waters from the Moray Firth to Grimsby— (a) A falling off of flat fish. (b) A decrease of haddock in certain places. II. In offshore waters. No decrease in the total take of fish in the North Sea, except in the case of soles. PLT, VI. WET: Wail: TX. 53 The beam trawl is not destructive to cod or haddock spawn. There is no proof of injury to the spawn of herrings or other edible fish. There is no wasteful or unnecessary destruction of immature food fishes by the beam trawl. The number of fish on particular grounds. especially in narrow waters, may be sensibly diminished by the use of the beam trawl. The injury done by the beam trawl to the food of fish is insignificant. It has not been proved that the use of the beam. trawl is the sole cause of the diminution of fish in territorial waters. In the absence of a proper system of fishery statistics and scientific observations, it is impossible to discover the causes or measure the fluctuations of the fisheries. Much avoidable damage has been done to drift nets and haddock lines, particularly by steam trawlers. Peculiar difficulties attend the recovery by fishermen of compensation under the Sea Fisheries Act, or of civil damages. RECOMMENDATIONS. In consequence of these conclusions and of other facts brought before us in the course of our inquiry, we submit the following recommendations to Your Majesty: 1G I. That a central authority be created to supervise and control the fisheries of Great Britain, if. sot of the. United «Kinodom, and ‘thativa sum of money be annually granted to such authority for the purpose of conducting scientific experiments and for collecting fishery statistics. That in the meantime powers be given to the Scotch Fishery Board similar to those of the 54 Irish Board, enabling them to make by-laws for the regulation or suspension of beam trawling, or of any other mode of fishing within territorial waters; and that a sum of money be granted annually by the Treasury for the purposes mentioned in the last paragraph. III. That a similar authority with similar powers be created for England, and that in the meantime those powers be conferred upon the Secretary of State or President of the Board of Trade. IV. That statutory powers and means be given to the fishery authorities to enable them to collect adequate statistics. V. That the cruisers serving under the Scotch Fishery Board, whether employed for police or scientific purposes, be replaced by efficient steam vessels. VI. That steam trawlers, besides having their number and letters painted on the bow, should also have them painted on the quarter. Considering this most recent report, it is evident that public sentiment in England, so far as it is expressed in the report of the Trawling Commission of 1885, is far in advance of public sentiment in this country in regard to the same subject. In conclusion, I desire to say, that in the discussion of this subject, I have aimed to avoid questions or occasions of controversy. I have sought to lay down the fundamental principles upon which it will be neces- sary to construct such legislation as may be found requisite to remedy actual or prevent impending de- crease in our fish supply. No one will dispute the power of the State, having in view the general interest, to prescribe such regulations as may be found expedient. It will be equally conceded that such power should be exercised with the utmost conservatism, and with due 5d regard to the important interests concerned. It will not be denied, I presume, that the effect of unrestrained fishing in our rivers is to reduce supply, which it is necessary to compensate for, either by artificial propa- gation or by restrictions in the fishing, or preferably, both combined. This necessity arises from the fact that it is possible in our rivers to intercept or obstruct the fish on their way to their spawning grounds. The further conclusion must be drawn that wherever, in reference to our coast fishes, it can be shown that the methods and locations of the fisheries are such as to obstruct or materially impede access to their spawning grounds, the same results must inevitably happen in reference to these that we have already found to take place in the case of our river species. The broad fact I wish to impress upon this audience and upon the fishing interests, is this: that the interest of the community is in maintainance of supply, and the interests of the fisheries cannot in any measure be separated from the general interest. Whatever meas- ures are required to increase or maintain production, are as clearly in the interest of the fishermen themselves as in that of the community of which they constitute a part. M. McDONALD. Captain Collins said, ‘Mr. President, I think I can help Colonel McDonald in regard to the statistics he has presented. At the time the investigation was made of the Gulf and South Atlantic States, I was in charge of that department of the United States Fish Commis- sion, and the figures he has given were those of the year 1890. Since that time there has been a system established of getting returns by blanks left with the fishermen, and all the statistics of the Great Lakes were taken in ’gt, or about that time. I think I am correct in stating that the complete statistics were not taken 56 for the rest of the Atlantic Coast. I know it has not been covered since 1889. I also know that they have been collected with a great deal of care as relates to certain species for '92 and '93, but I believe that I am correct in saying that these investigations ought to cover all the species. Why I speak of this, is for the reason that Colonel McDonald has said that these papers covered a period of ’91 and ’g92. It is true that these statistics cover some years generally and others specially, and there is no general way that can be taken as a basis for settling this question. It is also true that many of our fisheries fluctuate from year to year and that the statistics for last year will not suffice for this. This I found to be especially the case in Georgia, in the South Atlantic States, as the published reports will show. It will seem that there is a very rapid in- crease in fishing and also in pound and purse seines, so that if we had complete statistics of the entire interest from Rio Grande to Eastport, Maine, we might have something that would be of value to us. Colonel Marshal McDonald spoke of an increase in the invest- ed capital and the lack of an increase in the products. If he has looked this matter over properly, he will find that a large part of this increase in capitalization is due to the fact that great care is being now taken in the preservation of fish products. Enormous sums of money are spent for refrigerators, and to provide for the preservation of fish when the supply is in excess of the demand. The increase in the capitalization, there- fore, can hardly be taken in comparison with the in- crease of products, as the majority of the increase in money has been spent in these refrigerating houses. I also believe that there is a large increase in the cap- italization of the fisheries in the South Atlantic and Gulf States, where a great deal of money has been ex pended in establishing new fisheries, and also in plants for packing oysters and preserving the products of the 57 fisheries. All these things should be taken into con- sideration or else we may be misled in taking general statistics. I have given this matter careful considera- tion and am satisfied that statistics can be obtained that will be absolutely accurate and will tell the whole truth.” 58 THE FOOD-PROBLEM IN FISHCULTURE. BY CHAS. G. ATKINS. Any one reviewing the fishcultural literature of the last few years can but observe that attention has been to a remarkable degree concentrated on subjects per- taining to the nutrition of young fishes. The main question is no longer how shall we obtain the eggs of desirable species, or how shall we impregnate them, or how incubate them, or how many of the fry can we liberate ? but how shall we feed the young fish ?- There appears to be a very general agreement among fishculturists that it is desirable, not to say necessary, that the nutrition of the young fish resulting from arti- ficial operations, should no longer be left to nature and to chance, but should be made the subject of man’s most earnest study, and the object of his direct care. The negative of this proposition is hardly maintained by even the most conservative member of the craft. Those who have seemed to array themselves on the negative side, appear to me to be merely maintaining the insufficiency of the methods of feeding which have thus far been brought to their attention. I may say that for myself, after a careful study of the situation, and of the expressions of other fishculturists, I have reached these three conclusions: first, that the practice of holding the fry of salmon and trout in confinement and feeding them for some months after hatching is a distinct improvement over the practice of liberating them as soon as they can feed : second, that we have a fair prospect of effecting this work with due economy ; third, that there is good reason to expect the 59 best results from feeding with live food. To the latter theme I will devote this paper In a paper read before thissociety last year, Mr. Page admonished us that we were allowing European fish- culturists to lead us in this most important branch of the art This is unquestionably the fact, but I think we need not to hang our heads with shame on that account. The present stock of knowledge in this de- partment and the most advanced achievments have been a natural outgrowth from experience in pond-culture, an industry hardly yet known in America, but one that dates back hundreds of years in Europe, and is followed in some districts on a very large scale. In Bohemia - and Silesia there are fish-farms with hundreds of acres of water. At Wittingau, in Bohemia, a single fishculturist, Mr. Joseph Susta, has charge of ponds covering 15,000 acres, a considerable portion of which can be periodically drainedand flowed. ‘These great fish-farms were in existence and profitably conducted after a well- established routine many generations before the so-called artificial fishculture had its birth. It was, moreover, a live-food method, though hardly known to be such, even by its practitioners. The introduction of artificial] propagation of salmonidae and other fishes, and the general dissemination of interest in the scientific study of animal life during the last 53 years has reacted on the fisneulturists, » andj, quickened their | faculties!) of observation, and they have recently made some important discoveries. One of the most important of these discoveries, made by Mr. Susta of Wittingau, relates to the character of the food of fishes, especially the carp. It used to be held as a dogma that the carp fed mainly on vegetable matters Even as’ late asv0s63, Raphael Molin, the author of a work of some reputation on “The Rational Culture of Freshwater Fishes,” gave this account of the food of the carp : ‘““The carp delights in quiet water with 60 rich muddy bottom, in which he bores with his head in the search for worms, larvae, &c., on which, together with grass, young rushes, other vegetable substances, animal excrements, swollen barley, kitchen refuse, &c., he subsists.” Not satisfied with the results of manage- ment based on these theories of the habits of the carp, Susta undertook in 1876 a systematic study of the con- tents of the alimentary canal of the carp. Hundreds of specimens, from many different ponds, under various systems of feeding, were dissected and the results of the inspection carefully noted, with evident faithfulness and candor. Asa result he reached the conclusion that the carp in reality subsists on animal food exclusively ; and that the vegetable constituents of the contents of the stomach and intestine could only have been swallowed by accident, and in fact were voided by the fish almost wholly unaffected by digestion. Susta extended his investigations to other species and found only three sorts which could be considered plant- feeders. He classifies the ordinary European pond-fish aside from the carp, on the basis of their food, into (A) fish of.prey : (B) eaters of small animals: (C) vege- tarian. In the category of fish of prey, he names the pike, perch, ruff, (a percoid), pikeperch, brook trout, eelpout (Lota), sheat fish (Sedurus), and eels. As eaters of minute animals, he gives us the maraena (Coregonus), cruciancarp, tench, gudgeon, and eight other species of cyprinoids His list of vegetarians comprises only three species, namely, the dobule. (Sgualius dobula, Heck), the roach ( Leucescus rutzlus, Heck), and the rudd (Scardin- zus erythrophthalmus, Bon), all cyprinoids. More recently Dr. Otto Zacharias, director of the biological station at Plon, has made similar investigations of the stomach contents of numerous species of fish and reached the conclusion that the above three species are the only vegetarians among them ; and the researches 61 of another German investigator, Dr. Droscher, of Schwerin, indicate that one of these, the roach, is some- times largely an animal feeder. It is probable, therefore, that we have no vegetarian feeders among the fishes yet subjected to cultivation in America, or among those that are of sufficient import- ance to call for cultivation in the future, except possibly as furnishing food for more valuable species. All the salmon and trout and whitefish the grayling and smelts, ie perch, the bass; dc., must be regarded as. strictly animal feeders. Mr. Susta’s classification is liable to this criticism, that though it may apply correctly to the adult stages of all the fishes mentioned, it does not recognize the fact that when very young, all the predatory fishes must perforce take their food in very small mouthfuls, and are there- fore in their early stages to be classed with carp and tench and the coregonoids as subsisting on minute animal life. Now the great problem of fish-feeding with us is, at present, and perhaps will always continue to be, how properly to nourish the fish through their early stages; so, whether we are rearing carp or trout or salmon, the question of providing minute animals for their sustenance is one of paramount intérest. While Susta was studying the digestion of his carp, another fishculturist, Thomas Dubisch, the manager of a large pond-interest in Austrian Silesia, was perfecting and reducing to practice a system of management for carp-ponds, ‘of his invention, which has attracted. great attention, and is likely to be generally adopted by ¢ carp- breeders ; and from which we can sefely draw lessons for our cuidance in the culture of salmonidae in ponds. The Dubisch method, or that portion of it with which we have to do, consists essentially in having a soft and rich bottom to the pond, and drawing off the water so that the pond shall be completely empty and dry as long as possible each year, including the winter. If a 62 pond is emptied of fish in the autumn it is immediately laid dry and‘allowed to remain so until just before putting fish into it again the next spring or summer. The purpose of the soft and rich bottom is to encourage the growth of animal life. The laying dry is useful in two ways: first, it destroys predatory insects and other vermin which, in a pond continually filled with water, become so abundant as to prove very destructive to fish- food and to the young fish themselves ; second, through the drying and freezing it appears to directly encourage the development of the eggs of the small crustacea which form the most important part of the food of young fish. The water-level must be reduced to at least a foot below the bottom of the pond, else the vermin may not be destroyed. Here we have reached what may perhaps be consid- ered the most important point in the whole live-food business, the encouragement of the food and the destruction of the vermin by the simple process of laying the pond dry. The life-economy of the small crustacea, the entomostraca, is adapted to just these conditions, water for a portion of the year, drouth and frost for the rest. It can hardly have.escaped ine attention of any one interested in these matters what multitudes of minute creatures people the pools that are filled with water in the spring and dry up in the summer and autumn. It is nature’s way, and in devis- ing his system Dubisch has simply been following nature, The most important members of this pool fauna are the entomostraca, the daphnids, copepods, ostracods, and their relatives. They owe their importance to their ability to endure drying and freezing as mentioned above and also to the enormous rapidity of their repro- duction. A Daphnia, for instance, is endowed with the faculty of producing, under proper environment, such as obtains in the spring, generation after generation of 63 young without the intervention of the male; these young are all females and all likewise capable of repro- ducing without the male. The mother gives birth to living young every three or four days, say an average of 15 to a litter. Ina week or ten days these young are mature and begin in their turn to reproduce. Thus in the course of 60 days, according to one calculator, the descendants of a single Daphnia may number more than twelve hundred millions. Such enormous fecundity is not found, | think, among any other creatures that are of suitable size to serve as food for fish. The other entomostraca are also very prolific. Given plenty of entomostraca, the first condition of growth of young fish is met. But the multiplication and growth of the entomostraca is only possible when they too have an abundance of food, and they also are animal feeders. So another group of animals still more minute must precede the entomostraca. These are found among the protozoa, whose food is decaying vegetable and animal matter, such as is found to a certain extent in ordinary rich earth, and much more abundantly in animal excrement and the debris of succulent plants. Thus the basis of the system is a pond-bottom rich in animal and vegetable matter in process of decay. This nourishes abundance of pro- tozoa ; the protozoa nourish the crustacea ; the crustacea nourish the fishes. The question naturally suggests itself how far we may expect a system devised for carp and found applicable to their culture to meet the demands of trout and salmon culture. Truly only in a very general way, until experiment determines the details of its applica- tion. [I am not in possession of any authentic evidence that salmonidae have been reared in ponds managed alter the Dubisch or any similar method. Yet there seems no good reason to doubt that it is quite feasible so to grow them, Trout have been grown very suc- 64 cessfully in ponds on natural food. At the meeting of this society in 1892 [see report, page 64], Mr. N. K. Fairbank of Illinois, described his method of growing trout in an artificial pond fed with spring water, wholly on the food produced therein, without any care further than to put into the pond quantities of a weed on which he had found a good many shrimps, put in the fry and let them alone. In this way he estimates that fifty per . cent. of the fry live to be yearlings. This he has done year after year. In a paper read at the meeting in 1892 Mr. Page gave several instances of parties growing trout success- fully on live food. One of the parties referred to was Mr. Thomas Andrews of Guilford, England, who rears trout on a very large scale in ponds supplied with spring water, of a temperature ranging from 49 in winter to 56 in summer, making very considerable use of live food, especially shrimps (Gammarus) and _ snails (Lzmnaea) which are grown in separate ponds and transferred to the fish-ponds to be eaten, and in some. cases allowing trout to forage for themselves, without any artificial help, but depending mainly on chopped horse-flesh. From some more recent writings of Mr. Andrews and some other sources, I learn that he has made no attempt to imitate the methods of the conti- nental pond-culturists, has little faith in their theories, and considers Gammarus and Lzmnaea superior to Daphnia and other entomostraca as food for trout. In some of the water-leads between his ponds, he is able to take at one time, with little trouble, “many solid gallons” of small animals, mainly Gammarus and Limnaea, yet this abundance of life appears to be an accident of the conditions existing and nota part of the scheme of management. It is well known that carp are most advantageously bred in shallow ponds in which the water becomes very warm under the influence of the sun, and the difficulty 65 suggests itself that ponds in which the crustacea can be produced by the Dubisch method may be too warm for the trout or salmon, and that on the other hand if we keep the temperature down to the point required by the health of the fish, it may be impossible to rear their food. Dr. Kochs of Bonn, has advised that this diff- culty be avoided by growing the crustacea in shallow ditches connected with the cool pond or brook in which the fish live, and into which the crustacea will be washed by the currents created by the rise and fall of the water, his idea has been elaboratediby Mr. yKazl Wozelka of Prague, in a little book recently published, entitled “‘ New Methods of Fish-breeding combined with Willow culture,” in which he presents several plans, worked out in minute detail, of systems of breeding ditches and basins connected with ponds and with brooks, claimed to be drawn from his own experience. Some such system would probably prove practicable. leis quite possible that the identical species oi crustacea grown in the carp ponds might not thrive in water cool enough for trout, but there are others that surely would. Many copepods are found in early spring in very cool pools, sometimes at Craig Brook even anticipating the disappearance of the ice, and several species of daphnids occur in active condition in the depth of winter. The careful observations on the occurrence of aquatic animal life during each day of the year ending Oct. 31, 1893, at the biological station at the lake of Plon in the northern part of Germany, dis- closed the presence, in abundance, of several species of entomostraca during every month of the year. From January to April, inclusive, there was the greatest scarcity, yet no less than seven species of etomostraca were abundant in mid-January, and with the exception of the period from March 20 to April 10, there was no part of the entire year when some species was not found in abundance. 66 I had some years ago an opportunity to note, at Bucksport, Maine, a phenomenon of like character with those recorded at’ Plon: In :the Fall%cr we7em built a dam across a brook in Bucksport, to obtain a head of water to use in a hatchery. The ground was part of an old pasture, and cows waded freely about in the brook, and for a time, in the small pond formed by the completion of the dam. A portion of the ground flowed was a small alder swamp. Late the following winter there came down into the hatchery great numbers of living entomostraca, mainly Daphnids. We practiced at that time the filtering of the water through a flannel screen set across the head of each trough, and so great was the number of the entomos- traca that they often completely clogged up the screens, causing the water to overflow. This continued for several weeks. The pond was all the winter covered with ice, and the mean temperature of the water was as follows -in November, 39.1 F.; in Deeember, 35.17 am January, 34.5. Whether these entomostraca subsisted on their normal food, protozoa, or not, it is evident that they found sufficient nourishment even in that very cold water, and we are warranted in drawing the conclusion that daphnids may not only be bred in water cool enough for salmon and trout, but that they may probably be brought out at any season of the year by proper management. The elaboration of methods of managing fish-ponds for the production of live food appears to me, therefore, to be the most important task to which fishculturists can in these days address themselves. It may require a great deal of experimentation and study, and perhaps much patient waiting, but I cannot doubt that a satis- factory system of management will finally be evolved, the introduction of which will constitute an advance in fishculture as important as the introduction of artificial impregnation and incubation. 67 ALASKA’S FOOD FISHES AND THE INTERESTS OF ITS FISHERIES. BY Dr. BUSHROD W. JAMES, PHILADELPHIA. MEMBER OF PENNSYLVANIA FISH PROTECTION ASSOCIATION. Probably I should give as my reason for so often writing upon the natural resources of Alaska, that having visited the country and become a member of its historical society, I consider myself in a measure identified with its admirers and defenders. The seal industry alone has given the Territory importance for so many years, that the recent disturbance, judging only from that standpoint, appears to have demoralized it to such an extent that its future might be considered as almost hopeless, so far as its value to the United States is concermed: but the ‘seals actually, represeseomn a small percentage of its great resources, among which gold, silver and coal have prominent positions. Yet I have no doubt that more extensive investigation will demonstrate that seals, gold, silver and coal are surpassed in value by the immense quantities of excellent food fishes which attain to great size and perfection in the peculiarly pure waters of Alaska. Dr. Tarleton H. Bean, whose position as a member of the United States Fish Commission has led him to minutely examine into the numerous kinds of food fishes in Alaska, and their approximate value, has returned such an extended and accurate report of his investigation to the government, that I may be considered rather bold in touching upon the subject. As my defense, I will mention that Dr, Bean’s report is so identical with 68 the statistical business of the United States Fish Commission that it has not obtained the wide-spread publication which would have placed it before the great community of readers who are interested in such matters. Much of my knowledge upon the food fishes I have gained through consulting those reports as well as the various books published by travelers in Alaska. To this I have added by my tour in that country and still more probably by takinga merely common-sense view of the whole subject. We are well aware that fish must always be, as it ever has been, a staple article of diet with islanders and coast dwellers. Year after year its popularity has spread inland, until fine smoked, salted and canned fishes are welcome to nearly every- ones: table. The marked improvement im) ime preparation and preservation of fish has made the demand greater from season to season, and refined tastes have created a desire for the best and most delicately flavored of the various kinds. To supply the greatly augmented requirement, the large Eastern fisheries have in some places been depleted, while in others the stock has deteriorated through too continu- ous catches. Looking Westward, we can see plainly wonderful quantities of the same kind of fishes ready to replenish the failing stores and to take the place of the Eastern supply, at least until time is allowed for their renewal in growth and numbers. Perhaps we may not obtain the truly fresh Mish as it. lands imgeme California markets, imbedded in pure, translucent ice, but. cod, halibut, herring’ and. mackerel viee drying, salting or smoking, and salmon for canning are more than abundant and proportionately fine in size and quality. The several kinds of salmon were the subject of the paper offered by me for the consideration of this association two years ago; therefore I need not touch 69 upon them at this time except in the brief table of statistics which is appended to the present article. The halibut of Alaska grows to a great size, some- times weighing three hundred pounds and even more. It is a very important fish to the natives, who devote themselves to its capture almost exclusively. Smoked halibut is very excellent in flavor and must some day win its way into our markets, though as yet only a few thousand cases are prepared for commerce. Cod of Alaskan waters is almost analogous with the fish of the eastern coast whose fame is wide-spread, except that it grows larger and by dealers in the Western States it is considered superior in both fibre and flavor Another point in its favor is that as far east as Chicago, it is cheaper as well as better than its compeer of the Atlantic. The value of Pacific cod may be roughly estimated by the returns for its receipt in San Francisco in 1893, when there were 1,243,000 fishes delivered to the numerous dealers. Even at variable prices the income must be large, for the fishes some- times when caught reach a weight of thirty pounds each. The receipts of these fish alone at San Francisco have amounted to 29,123,800 fishes between the years 1865 and 1893. Even estimating the individual weight to be. small the returns seem to prove that the Cod Fisheries alone are well worthy of protection. Cods abound in the sea and ocean around the Aleutian Islands, and are so plentiful that they can be obtained at almost any time inthe year. Taking the statement of dealers in Chicago and other central Western cities regarding quality and price it is reasonable to believe that a systematised arrangement could be made which would benefit commerce in the States and aid the islanders in gaining a less variable livelihood; for the poorer part of the population on the islands and near coast are practically compelled to fairly gorge themselves during the season 70 when seals, whales or walruses can be obtained, and live a life of semi-starvation the remainder of the year. Alaskan herring is positively so super-abundant during the running season that millions are thrown upon the beach by the tides, where they remain to perish, a most reprehensible practice there or elsewhere. Perhaps the possibilities of this fish cannot be highly estimated because of the lack of fuel to use in smoking, the only manner in which this species seems to be considered palatable. But there may yet be a way found by some enterprising American to utilize this enormous production of the sea. From the great waves which leap far on to the shore in stormy weather, thousands of tons of kelp, a strong, ropy sea-weed, are thrown and left beyond the reach of their recession. The natives use this for fuel but leave vast quantities to waste Perhaps the time will come when this material will be used in preparing the fish for Eastern markets. Used for food when fresh, it is claimed to have superior qualities to those of the herring of the Atlantic coast. Mackerel, that prime favorite of salted fish, abounds in quantities almost beyond belief. The vast schools appear near the coasts at Attu literally piled one upon | another. ‘They grow to fine size, and the flavor is said to be the same as that of Atlantic mackerel. Their season is short—from June 1st. to July 31st—but Mr Lucian Turner asserts that from his own observation ‘‘500 barrels of 200 pounds each could easily be prepared at the rate of about $2.00 per barrel.” It would be a slight matter to erect fish-curing sheds (men work willingly for a $1.00 and women for 50 or 75 cents per day) and as the Alaskans are experts in cleaning the fish, doubtless Mr. Turner’s estimate could be over- reached by systematic labor. The value of these few species of fish alone would pay for investment in the addition to the stock for trade, and go a great distance in teaching the natives to utilize the abundant products 71 of the sea in obtaining other comforts for themselves through the profits of their work. The size to which fish attain in Alaska appears almost incredible. White fish of from thirty-five to forty pounds in weight are common in the waters from St. Michael’s to Anvik. During the season they are eagerly sought for by the natives. Black fish grow very large and are wonderfully abundant. Dr. Bean and Mr. Turner state that they run for ‘‘many miles along the coast, and into the rivers where they are the chief dependence for about three thousand inhabitants with their aogs. In’ three months sixty-nine tons are taken. The average is about 103.5 tonsinaseason.” These as well as Tom Cod and Lamprey Eels are frozen in grass bags or possibly left upon the ice to be chopped in pieces when wanted. Sometimes the mass is sliced and eaten raw, and often it is boiled, but in either case the natives often have only this form of food, when other food supplies are unattainable. By a grateful adaptability to circumstances neither men nor dogs seem to desire anything better. The fishes which I have here mentioned are but a few of the most valuable of the many excellent species which are plentiful beyond computation. There are flounders, greylings, smelts, sticklebacks, eels, sturgeon, sculpins, and in fact nearly all kinds of fishes from whales to minnows, and all enormously abundant. By this we can plainly see the peculiar provision which nature has made for both the human and animal inhabitants of that strange north country. The people are poor in every comfort outside of that to be obtained from the creatures of the ocean or its near neighborhood. Confined to a country in which land animal food is but scarcely distributed, and vegetables, fruit and milk are unknown, the human inhabitants have been necessitated to subsist upon that which could be found in sufficient quantity. Salt being an almost unknown commodity 72 until the advent of the Russians, they have been contented in earlier days to eat from year’s end to year’s end, unsalted fish, whale, seal and walrus, a diet that would be utterly abhorrent to anyone but themselves. They have found in these mammals all the requirements for food and clothing, fire and light, and in their absence fish anda few roots and berries have been their only luxuries. The love of home is innately strong, so the manner in which to make them more comfortable and nearer to equality with the other inhabitants of the United States is to teach them to utilize for trade all the food fishes possible. Naturally those who live in the more remote localities will be sometime in their pristine condition and the great duty devolving upon those who are in power js to protect their main-stay in the sea and its tributaries. The smaller fishes are the food of the larger, such as cod, halibut, salmon, herring and mackerel ; these again are the prey of the still larger, and the very existence of one depends, upon the. safety of the other, Tie profits in whale fishing have fallen off considerably because of the manner of slaying and the greed of those who are not careful in selecting their animals. Explosives particularly, not only destroy the monsters who are sought for oil and bone, but they injure the more abundant smaller fishes. Direct from a San Francisco whaleman comes the news that his vessel made its usual voyage, which occupied nine months, when it was compelled to return for provisions with but one medium sized whale for the season’s returns. This individual blamed the disastrous season on the illicit fishing, and the use of fire-arms and powder, which frighten the timid creatures away from their haunts. The loss to the whaler is serious, but the natives who depend upon the cetaceans for their living in certain parts of the year, must suffer pitiably by their absence. 73 A strangely consistent array of benefits will arise in the proper protection of the seals in the Behring Sea because the interest in that will redound to the good of all. If fishing vessels desist from unseasonable hunting, whales and walruses will most probably return in numbers to their old haunts. The protection of food fishes will commensurately preserve the food of the greater animals, and smaller fishes will multiply in numbers sufficient to supply food for those of greater value. A law requiring fishes of no marketable value to be returned to the sea immediately, will prevent great loss in the food supply of important mammals and large fishes, and prevent some of the most unpleasant hindrances to those who are unwilling to engage in the business because of the odor of decay- ing fish. Doubtless, the offal from canneries and salting and drying stations could be utilized for fertilizers with but little trouble. If the location renders it impossible to reduce the pulp to anything of value, it surely could be returned to the water and become the food of other fishes or crustaceans. The plausibility of civilized and com- aS delicately reared white men engaging in the aborious part of catching and cleaning food fishes for market is very doubtful, but the natives seem willing to work for wages, and if they are taught the mode of preserving to suit the market both East and West, there will be no great need for white men to engage in the manual labor. Doubtless, Aleuts could be taught to become trusty superintendents as well as workmen, and companies need but employ a few others to oversee, and attend to packing and shipping. There is no possible mistake in asserting that with proper management there is a mine of wealth in the fisheries of Alaska. The Eastern coast has not within the knowledge of history ever been the vast, almost illimitable store-house of food fishes 74 which Behring Sea, the North Pacific and their numerous tributaries are to day. The United States in general needs this grand supply to add to its commercial value, and the Treasury can make profitable use of the revenue which will result. And a question which is of vital moment is the great good that must accrue to the people of the country. They need to be brought nearer to the standard of the rest of the nation. To bring them into closer touch with the sister states and territories, no plan could be adopted more certain and consistent with all the laws of right than to teach them to use for themselves the best means of utilizing that with which nature has supplied them in super abundant measure. In order to give an idea of the value of a few of the fisheries of Alaska, I beg leave to append the following statistics whose authority is unquestionable, having been calculated from the accounts of Dr. Tarleton H. Bean, Mr. Lucian Turner, Mr. E. W. Nelson and Mr. Frederick True, and also from the “Alaskan” a bright little paper published at Sitka, the capital of Alaska. For the year 1893 the returns of salmon at San Francisco were 693,262 cases of canned fish (with one district not reported) and 32,102 barrels of salted fish. Estimating the value at $4.00 per case it would reach $2,773,048 lor the ,canned «salmon, )/\Phe» saltedgya: previous estimate, $9.00 per barrel, would amount to $288,918. The receipts of Pacific cod in 1893 were 1,243,000 fishes, while the returns from 1865 to 1893 reached the enormous aggregate of 29,123,800 fishes. The value in 1889 was $50.00 per ton, which would make the total valuation for those years at least $205,725. Summing the value of the salmon for the year 1893 alone, and that of the cod mentioned above, we would have a total from those two only partially devoloped industries of the Territory amounting to the round sum ite (m9) of $3,267,691, or nearly one half of the purchase money of our northwest possessions. The total amount of canned salmon in Alaska from 1878 to 1890 was valued at $9,008,497 ; the salted from 1881 to 1890 yielded $603,548. The full receipt for cod from 1868 to 1890 equalled $1,246,650; and the products'from the whales were valued at $11,057,418. Allow me to conjoin the value of these three fisheries alone and we have the grand total of $21,916,113, more than three times the purchase money. This has no connection with the profit from any other industry whatever and tells for itself whether the object of the United States Fish Commission and Fish Protective Associations are not both laudable and _ necessary adjuncts to the advancement of the great commercial interests of our country as well as to the aggrandisement of its people and the developement of its northwestern resources. For comparison permit me to add the value of the Furs, mostly Sealskins, - - - $48,518,920. Gold and Silver, - : 4,631,840, Ivory, from Walruses genl’y 147,047. $53,297,816. _ being the aggregate from 1868 to 1890. Thanking my colleagues for their earnest attention and their patience with my rather dry details, I retire with the hope that the Fishing Interests of Alaska have not suffered from my earnest desire for their protection and advancement. 76 COMPARATIVE SUMMARY OF THE FISHERIES OF THE UNITED STATES IN 188 AND 1802. Personsemployed.} Capital invested. Value of products. : States. Pee es te ere | oe ee 1880. 1892.* 1880. 1892. 1880. 1892. New England: : Blaiie sy ais sees 11,071 15,128 | $ 3,375,904 | $ 2,882,113 | $ 2,742,571 | $ 2,225,806 New Hampshire.. 414 373 209,465 03)328 176,684 91,481 Massachusetts....} 20,117 17,025 14,334,450 | 12,980,679 7959760 715315194 Rhode Island..... 2,310 1,584 596,678 1,034,467 696,814 725,075 Connecticut....... 3,131 2,915 1,421,020 2,868,921 933,242 1,871,413 Total....ece.--| 37,043 37025 19,937,607 | 19,859,508 | 12,509,071 | 12,445,569 Middle Atlantic: New Work... ..:.. 6,465 12,246 255731535 5)282,970 317633537 417845753 New Jersey....... 6,220 10,433 1,492,202 2,517,764 3)103,927 | 3,625,890 Pennsylvania.... 452 2,220 94,8c1 976,011 276,600 284,031 Delaware......... 1,979 25247 268,231 218,129 997,695 250,865 Maryland...... ...| 26,008 391944 653421443 | 7,465,718 | 5,221,715 | 6,460,759 Virginia....... aie 18,864 23,595 1,914,119 259445559 259971043 3,641,282 otal eereseer: 59,989 go, 685 12,685,331 | 19,405,151 | 16,360,517 | 19,047,580 South Atlantic: ar i 7 North Corolina... 5,274 10,274 506, 561 1,243,988 845,695 1,027,669 South Carolina... 1,005 2,701 66,275 127,762 212,482 202,602 Georgia.........- 899 1,622 78,770 174,431 119,993 123,563 EMOTIGR. ceecesrn 368 15541 439554 146,895 78,408 236,060 WMotal 22s. 3cc May, W. L., Omaha, Nebraska. McDonald, Marshall, Washington, D. C. (U. S. F. C.) McGown, Hon. H. P., 76 Nassau St., New York. Mackay, Robt. M., 1517 N. 13th St., Philadelphia, Pa. Middleton, W., Fulton Market, New York. 126 Milbank, S. W., Union Club, New York. Miles, Jacob F., 1820 Arch St., Philadelphia, Pa. ’8o. Miller, Ernest, Fulton Market, New York. Miner, Gy Harry, New York, (\ or Moore, Geo. H. H., Washington, D: C. "85. Miller, S. B., Fulton Market, New York. Miller, Archibald, Norwich, Conn. Mills, Geo. T., Carson City, Nevada. Miller, Jas. O., Mt) Kisco; N.Y. Merrill, Fred. J. H., Ph.D., State Museum, Albany, N.Y. Manning, W. W., Marquette, Mich. INoon: Geo. T. "85. Wann, Td) Eh. . “85. Mager, Li. MM.) (36. Nichan. W miss: "os; Nevin, James, Madison, Wis. (Wis. Fish Comm. ) Cy Brin, Martin E., South Bend, Nebraska. ‘88 O'Connor, taal es ‘Washington, D.C. CU. S72 5e See Deceased ’92. Osborn, Hon. ‘C. V.,’Dayton, Ohio. “go. Offensend, Jno. H., Fair Haven, Vt. Orvis. Chas. F., Manchester, Vt. Page, George, 49 Wall St., New York. Pager, Nevsho, Mo. (U.S, F.C) Parwer, Jor. )[.C., Grand Rapids, Mich, marten Peter, mri i(Us Sh. Cy Pease, Chas., East Rockport, Cuyhoga Co., O. ’85. Pike Hon. R. G., Middleton, Conn. 86. Post, Hoyt, Detroit, Mich. (Mich. Fish Comm.) Post, W., Knickerbocker Club, New York. Bowell. Wo Lis rlarrishuta. Pa (P enha a) Porter, B. P. Page, Geo. Shepherd. | Preston, Dr. Henry G., 98 Lafayette, Square, Br’klyn. Rowers, |. -A:, Troy. 'N, -¥. Potter,.Judge E.:D., Toledo, Olio: 7oa: Quackenboss, Prof. Jno. D., 331 W. 28th St., New Your Rathburn, Richard, Washington, |B Coe 5. Fae 127 Ray, Hon, Ossian, M.C., New Hampshire. 84. Redmond, R., 113 Franklin St., New York. Reinecke; Theodore, Box 1651, New York. Reynal, j., 84 White St., New York. Reynolds, Chas. B., 318 Broadway, New York. 88. Ricards, Geo., Hackensack, N. J. Robson, Hon. Geo. M., Camden, ENte enya Ravenal, W. DeC., Washington, DC CULS Ee as) Rufmeyer, Li! 85: Paley, ©. V. '85. mee Ia: J. 85. rogers, bi. MM.” 38. Rooseveldt, R. B. ’88. Rogers, W. vie , Amherst, N. H. Deceased Spring of’o4. Schaffer, Geo. ae Foot of Perry St., New York. eee in: MoH: ie: CGs170 Weilligm St., New York. Schuyler, 1. P., Troy; New York. Scherman, Genl. R.U., New Hartford,Oneida Co., N.Y. Simmons, Newton, Washington, D. C. (U. S. F. C.) Smiley, C. W., Smithsonian Inst., Washington, D. C. a A. M., 529 Commerce Se: Philadelphia, Pa. 89. Spensley, Calvert, Mineral Point, Wis. spottord, Henry, 10 East 31st St, New York. Stone, Livingston, Baird, Shasta Car California. Stone, Summer R., 58 Pine St., New York. swan, B. L:, Jr, 5 W. 20th St; New York) Deceased. Sweeny, Or, Dr. R.O., Duluth, Minn. Streuber, L., Erie, Pa. (Penna. F. Comm.) eirauahan, |. |.,Put-in-Bay, ‘Onie, (US) Fico sea!) W. P. Philadelphia) Pa: Stelwagon, Wrightman, Philadelphia, Pa. Saranac Lake Hotel Co., Patton & Young, Ampersand, Franklyn Co., N. Y. 92. Sherwin, H. A,, 100 Canal’St., Cleveland, Ohio, Schullman, C. W. 85. Thompson, H. H., Bedford Bank, Brooklyn, N. Y. Tomlin, W. D., Duluth, Minn. Titcomb, Jno. W., Rutland, Vt. (State F. Comm.) 128 Taylor, Alexander, Jr.. Mamaroneck, N. Y. Upton, G. W., Warren, Ohio. Van Valkenburg, B. F., 288 Greenwich St., New York. Wan Cleef, J. S., Poughkeepsie, N: ¥; Vanbrant..C. ’86. Walton, Collins W., 1713 Spring Garden St., Phila- delphia, Pa. Ward, Geo. E., 43 South St., New York. Deceased. Pvecks, Seth, Cory; Erie‘Co,.; Pa. West, Benjamin, Fulton Market, New York. Whitaker, Herschel, 78 Moffat Building, Detroit, Mich. Whitney, Sam’l, Katonah, N. Y. Wilbur, E. H., Forest and Stream, New York. Wilcox, Joseph, Media, Pa. ’84. Wilcox, W. A., 176 Atlantic Ave., Boston, Mass. Willetts, : Oe 'Skaneatles, N.Y. Williams, A. G , Chagrin Falls, Ohio. ’88. Wilmot, Sam’l, Ottowa, Dominion of Canada. Wilson, J. Paul, Washington, D.‘C..(U. 5, Fea Wood, Benjamin, 25 Park Row, New York. Woodruff, G. D., Sherman, Conn. Worth, Stel Washington, DC. CO See Witherbee, W. C.,’Port Henry, Essex'Co,, Noe Welshon, Geo. D., Pittsburg, Pa. ’91. Warren, C. C., Waterbury, Vt. (Fish Comm.) Wilbur, H. O., Third St., below Race, Philadelphia, Pa. Webb, W. Seward, 44th St. and Vanderbilt Ave., New York. Ward, Dr. Samuel, Albany, N. Y. (Prest. New York Fish and Game Association. ) Resigned Nov. 5.’93. Whitaker, E. G., Mutual Life Building, New York. Wallace, N. , Farrington, Conn. Yealden, J. New York. (Treas. Adirondac Reserve Ass'n. ) Zweighalt, S. 1323 Franklin St., Philadelphia, Pa. 6'e LN 3 9088 01016 2972 |