22.— FISH-CULTURE IN MICHIGAN. 



BY HOYT POST, 

 Of the Michigan Fish Commission. 



In this year of reminiscences it may not be amiss to briefly review the work done 

 in fish-culture in Michigan. The record is found iii ten biennial reports of the Michi- 

 gan Fish Commission. This record, presumably like that of other States, shows some 

 blunders, frequent mistakes, and many sad disappointments, but by persistence, energy, 

 and pluck the blunders were overcome, the mistakes corrected, and the disappoint- 

 ments were borne with the Christian resignation which is 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 circumstances, and the fish-culturist'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 two appointed mem 

 bers who were to hold office until the expiration of the next regular session of the 

 legislature. Their duty was stated to be u to select a suitable location for a State 

 fish-breeding establishment for tbe artificial 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 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, indicates 

 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 in and appreciation of the work had much to do with the 

 passage of the law, as well as with the public interest in the subject and the early 

 success of the commission. His associates on the first board were Andrew J. Kellogg 

 and George Clark, the latter of whom had an experience of almost half a century in 

 catching whitefish in the waters of the State. 



201 



